You got me. I really don't care that much. This is exhausting.
The torah prescribes commandments, that god commanded to follow. These are valid statements regardless of wheher or not got exists. If God says "Tie your shoes so they don't fall off your feet", this sound advice regardless of who says it. If Satan says "Tie your shoes so they don't fall off your feet", this is still sound advice and isn't bad just because Satan says it.
My point is just that the commandments prescribed by God existed and were militantly followed by the Jewish and Christian societies that worshiped god. These were able to create a sound, solid, functional and stable society not because of magic or divine intervenstion, but because the commandments are just sound, practical, and incredibly beneficial laws for a society. It was these benefits from actually following the commandments that allowed society to become so great, powerful, and stable.
This is why I respect the commandments. If Satan had given the 613 commandments, I would respect them just as much. None of this is about religion, superstition, mysticism, spirituality, any of that other stuff.
This is only me trying to defend the Commandments, because these are simple, sound, statements of quality advice, no different from "Tie your shoes or else they will fall off". They are legitimate commandments regardless of who says them, and they are legitimate because they are legitimate by objective and secular means. They are legitimate because they actually produce a sound, stable, and functional society without any sort of divine intervention or magic from God, Jesus, or anyone else.
That's my main point here. You really love Jesus, for whatever reason. I get it.
My point about Jesus being a criminal. Regarldess of whatever anyone said about the matter. Jesus was publically executed by the law, the Romans. This means he was either a criminal or this was just a public lynching. I don't really care one way or the other.
My problem with Jesus is his followers tend to disregard a large number of the commandments. Again, this is not a spiritual argument. They disregard the commandments, allegorically, they don't tie their shoes. They don't die their shoes so they trip, stumble and fall needlessly. That's the major issue. The forgiveness of Jesus isn't going to change whether or not your shoes are tied. Jesus isn't going to fly out of heaven and come perform divine intervention just so you don't trip and fall because your shoes are untied.
The issue is that people have abandoned the commandments and society stumbles on account of this, society suffers because they've abandoned the traditional morality that once allowed for the creation of a stable and functional society. That's it.
As for the point about the Canaanites. Really? I mean the bible explicitly says "This law about offering peace does not apply to the Canaanites."
Deut 20:15 : This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
This offering of peace only applies to "cities that are at a distance", and do not belong to the nations nearby (the Canaanites)
Deut 20: 16-18: However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.
"do not leave alive anything that breathes" - Men, women, children, animals. Everything related to the Canaanites is to be killed.
"they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."
This is exactly what happened in the West, we now tolerate all of the practices of the Canaanites, and our societies are rife with godlessness and sin. Chief practices being Sodomy, ritual mixing, and human sacrifice. Which we do lots of, all 3 of these Canaanite rituals are protected by law in the USA. Regardless of whether or not people are consciously performing Canaanite ritual when they do these things, they are still doing them.
I don't really care personally, if you don't want to tie your shoes, that's your own business. At least acknowledge that God commands you not to offer peace to the Canaanites, and not to leave any thing alive that breaths which has been corrupted by the Canaanites. When you tolerate the Canaanites, you are taught to follow in their rituals, which is plainly visible today.
It's just hard for me to try and understand a Jesus based religion without any real moral code or laws. It's just Jesus forgives everyone and gives them free tickets to heaven.
It's total nonsense, objectively speaking, in a secular, legitimate, scientific manner. It doesn't serve the purpose of religion, which is to encourage social/beneficial behavior by punishing antisocial/harmful behavior, and clearly the faith in Jesus has failed to do this and instead ushered in this incredible godless vice-stricken world we live in today.
Again, not a particularly spiritual person. I just respect the bible on an objective level as a source of sound and legitimate arguments with respect to social orchestration. The corruption of Jesus, the abandonment of morality over the past century, seems to be throwing the baby out of the window and keeping the bathwater. Shameless, but again I don't particularly care. Society is not my shoe to tie.
Board index ‹ Jesus
16 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: The teachings of Jesus are often misinterpreted
by Marzipan » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:41 pm
- Marzipan
Re: The teachings of Jesus are often misinterpreted
by jimwalton » Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:42 pm
> The torah prescribes commandments, that god commanded to follow.
I've already mentioned this is incorrect. The Torah gives legal wisdom about how Israel can be in right relation to God.
> If God says "Tie your shoes so they don't fall off your feet", this sound advice regardless of who says it. If Satan says "Tie your shoes so they don't fall off your feet", this is still sound advice and isn't bad just because Satan says it.
Correct. Truth is truth wherever it is found.
> My point is just that the commandments prescribed by God existed and were militantly followed by the Jewish and Christian societies that worshiped god.
I wouldn't use the word "militantly," but God did tell us how to be in relationship with Him, and that's the whole point, not "commands" to "follow", and especially not particularly "militantly."
> These were able to create a sound, solid, functional and stable society not because of magic or divine intervenstion, but because the commandments are just sound, practical, and incredibly beneficial laws for a society.
We've been through this. The point was not at all to created a sound, solid, functional, stable society, but to create a people that belonged to God that found their identity and order in Him.
> Jesus was publically executed by the law, the Romans.
Correct.
> This means he was either a criminal or this was just a public lynching. I don't really care one way or the other.
But the former was your whole point, so it seems you do care. But in truth (for the Romans) it was the latter: a public lynching to appease the Jews who objected to Jesus making Himself equal with God. It's a big difference. Jesus was not a criminal in any sense of the word.
> My problem with Jesus is his followers tend to disregard a large number of the commandments.
The commandments are not for us. They were part of the theocracy of ancient Israel and were fulfilled by Jesus. We've covered this territory, but apparently to no avail.
> The issue is that people have abandoned the commandments and society stumbles on account of this, society suffers because they've abandoned the traditional morality that once allowed for the creation of a stable and functional society. That's it.
This is precisely NOT the issue. It's never been about the shape of society or the stability of our civil government. It has NEVER been about what you're claiming, and it's where you are dead wrong.
> This is exactly what happened in the West, we now tolerate all of the practices of the Canaanites, and our societies are rife with godlessness and sin. Chief practices being Sodomy, ritual mixing, and human sacrifice.
I've disagreed with this perspective from the beginning of our conversation, and I explained what the Bible says.
> At least acknowledge that God commands you not to offer peace to the Canaanites, and not to leave any thing alive that breaths which has been corrupted by the Canaanites. When you tolerate the Canaanites, you are taught to follow in their rituals, which is plainly visible today.
You are spiritualizing a historical event. Historical examples only become typological when they are supported by a direct teaching to make them so, which is not the case here. You would have to identify a NT text that endorses what you're saying.
> It's just hard for me to try and understand a Jesus based religion without any real moral code or laws.
Jesus certainly expects his followers to be moral people. There's no question about that. But we don't follow the OT Law or the Torah; we follow the example of Christ—a person, not a list of rules.
> It's just Jesus forgives everyone and gives them free tickets to heaven.
Jesus forgives only those who repent and come to Him for a life-change.
> It doesn't serve the purpose of religion, which is to encourage social/beneficial behavior by punishing antisocial/harmful behavior
This is most assuredly NOT the purpose of Christianity. This has nothing to do with nothing. You're misunderstanding here is deep and wide. Christianity is about a relationship with God, not about encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial/harmful behavior. This is just dead wrong. There's nothing Scriptural or biblical about this position you have stated.
> clearly the faith in Jesus has failed to do this
Faith in Jesus was never expected to do this. Faith in Jesus frees one from his/her slavery to sin and brings a person into relationship with God.
> The corruption of Jesus, the abandonment of morality over the past century, seems to be throwing the baby out of the window and keeping the bathwater.
You just have the complete wrong understanding of what God, Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity are all about. We can talk about, and I'm glad to discuss it with you, but you have to throw out these incorrect political/societal notions you have so we can talk about what it's all really about. So let's talk.
I've already mentioned this is incorrect. The Torah gives legal wisdom about how Israel can be in right relation to God.
> If God says "Tie your shoes so they don't fall off your feet", this sound advice regardless of who says it. If Satan says "Tie your shoes so they don't fall off your feet", this is still sound advice and isn't bad just because Satan says it.
Correct. Truth is truth wherever it is found.
> My point is just that the commandments prescribed by God existed and were militantly followed by the Jewish and Christian societies that worshiped god.
I wouldn't use the word "militantly," but God did tell us how to be in relationship with Him, and that's the whole point, not "commands" to "follow", and especially not particularly "militantly."
> These were able to create a sound, solid, functional and stable society not because of magic or divine intervenstion, but because the commandments are just sound, practical, and incredibly beneficial laws for a society.
We've been through this. The point was not at all to created a sound, solid, functional, stable society, but to create a people that belonged to God that found their identity and order in Him.
> Jesus was publically executed by the law, the Romans.
Correct.
> This means he was either a criminal or this was just a public lynching. I don't really care one way or the other.
But the former was your whole point, so it seems you do care. But in truth (for the Romans) it was the latter: a public lynching to appease the Jews who objected to Jesus making Himself equal with God. It's a big difference. Jesus was not a criminal in any sense of the word.
> My problem with Jesus is his followers tend to disregard a large number of the commandments.
The commandments are not for us. They were part of the theocracy of ancient Israel and were fulfilled by Jesus. We've covered this territory, but apparently to no avail.
> The issue is that people have abandoned the commandments and society stumbles on account of this, society suffers because they've abandoned the traditional morality that once allowed for the creation of a stable and functional society. That's it.
This is precisely NOT the issue. It's never been about the shape of society or the stability of our civil government. It has NEVER been about what you're claiming, and it's where you are dead wrong.
> This is exactly what happened in the West, we now tolerate all of the practices of the Canaanites, and our societies are rife with godlessness and sin. Chief practices being Sodomy, ritual mixing, and human sacrifice.
I've disagreed with this perspective from the beginning of our conversation, and I explained what the Bible says.
> At least acknowledge that God commands you not to offer peace to the Canaanites, and not to leave any thing alive that breaths which has been corrupted by the Canaanites. When you tolerate the Canaanites, you are taught to follow in their rituals, which is plainly visible today.
You are spiritualizing a historical event. Historical examples only become typological when they are supported by a direct teaching to make them so, which is not the case here. You would have to identify a NT text that endorses what you're saying.
> It's just hard for me to try and understand a Jesus based religion without any real moral code or laws.
Jesus certainly expects his followers to be moral people. There's no question about that. But we don't follow the OT Law or the Torah; we follow the example of Christ—a person, not a list of rules.
> It's just Jesus forgives everyone and gives them free tickets to heaven.
Jesus forgives only those who repent and come to Him for a life-change.
> It doesn't serve the purpose of religion, which is to encourage social/beneficial behavior by punishing antisocial/harmful behavior
This is most assuredly NOT the purpose of Christianity. This has nothing to do with nothing. You're misunderstanding here is deep and wide. Christianity is about a relationship with God, not about encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial/harmful behavior. This is just dead wrong. There's nothing Scriptural or biblical about this position you have stated.
> clearly the faith in Jesus has failed to do this
Faith in Jesus was never expected to do this. Faith in Jesus frees one from his/her slavery to sin and brings a person into relationship with God.
> The corruption of Jesus, the abandonment of morality over the past century, seems to be throwing the baby out of the window and keeping the bathwater.
You just have the complete wrong understanding of what God, Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity are all about. We can talk about, and I'm glad to discuss it with you, but you have to throw out these incorrect political/societal notions you have so we can talk about what it's all really about. So let's talk.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The teachings of Jesus are often misinterpreted
by Marzipan » Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:47 pm
> The commandments are not for us.
I mean, I dont have much to say. This statement here says it all. "You are not obligated to do what God commands you to do." Ok.
> Christianity is about a relationship with God, not about encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial/harmful behavior
This is the major issue with Christianity. The point of religion is encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial/harmful behavior. When Christianty does not do this, Christianity does not objectively qualify as a religion by secular logic.
When you're not a religion, yet you hold mystical, supernatural, theistic, or otherwise superstitious beliefs, you are a cult. That's the difference between a cult and a religion.
A religion by default exists as a valid religion, only when it successfully encourages social/beneficial behavior and punishes or reduces antisocial/harmful behavior.
That's it.
My argument has nothing to do with mysticism or spirituality. There is nothing relevant to souls, heaven, angels, magic, or the other parts of the story.
By my argument, the Bible is just a book. By my standards, Jesus is just a person.
> "Historical examples only become typological when they are supported by a direct teaching to make them so, which is not the case here. You would have to identify a NT text that endorses what you're saying. "
This is the major flaw with Christianity. You literally condemn God himself, you disregard God, and instead listen only to Jesus. If Jesus were in fact God, then Jesus would never have contradicted God, Jesus never would have said anything that makes God hypocritical, a liar, or otherwise wrong.
If God commands you to destroy the Canaanites, and Jesus is in fact God, then Jesus himself also commands you to destroy the Canaanites. These are Commandments from God, and when Jesus is the same individual as God, these are commandments from Jesus himself.
This is the issue with Christians, if Jesus was God, why isn't God still God? That's nonsense. Even if Jesus was God, that doesn't make anything he said 1,000 years earlier any less true or binding. That's the issue. The Christians use Jesus to abandon God, and assert that the word of Jesus is somehow superior to that of God.
At best, if Jesus was God, that means Jesus was always the same thing as God. That means the world of Jesus would be equally as valid as the word of God, spoken by God himself.
This also means that both God and Jesus being omniscient and all-knowing, that God has never said or commanded anything that is Contrary to the teachings of Jesus, and that Jesus has never said of taught anything that is contrary to the commandments of God. These two forces cannot rival, compete with, or contradict one another when these are the exact same people.
That's the issue with trying to abandon the commandments of God from the old testament when Jesus doesn't directly speak to them.
Again. The secular, objective, and scientific value from the Bible comes largely from the Old Testament. These are basic constraints that when placed upon society provide benefit and reduce harm.
The benefit of the teachings of Jesus are far less applicable and beneficial in a secular sense unless you find yourself disenfranchised and powerless. If you attempt to govern a society with the teachings of Jesus you destroy it. Jesus teaches you how to survive against the odds, to survive when powerless. The strategies that somebody who is powerless and threatened must use to survivea and thrive are very different from the strategies that people must use when they have a substantial amount of power and are entrusted with governing society.
This is all about the context of the teaching. God teaches the Israelites how to run society when they are in charge and hold power. Jesus teaches his followers, powerless and oppressed people, how to survive despite being surrounded by vice, corruption, apostasy, and godlessness.
These teachings cannot be the overarching principles of a society because they don't function in a secular sense. Again, nothing here is about spirituality or magic or anything like that. This is just secular, objective reasoning.
When you compare the two sets of principles that people could emulate. Those of the Old Testament, and those of Jesus, it's just obvious, in a purely secular manner, that the teachings of Jesus are very dysfunctional if you attempt to rule a society with them. The teachings of the Old Testament are very dysfunctional when you try to apply them as a powerless individual.
The context of these teachings is very important. There is no strategy that works 100% of the time no matter way. Different situations need people to use different strategies in order to be successful.
This isn't about spirituality. Spirituality is completely irrelevant here.
Until the magic of Jesus reliably changes and alters scientific laws, the arguments related to spirituality are completely irrelevant. These things don't produce and objective effects, so they are completely irrelevant when making objective judgements.
This argument is hard for me because you are a purely faith-based, spiritualistic, mystic sort of believer. You don't see the objective secular value that is created by the bible, the parts that provide value to society objectively, without any sort of relevance of significance being given to the spiritual effects of following this advice. This advice is just good advice in general, and the fact that God gives this advice doesn't make it any better (or worse) than if anyone else said it.
I take things entirely at their objective value, and many things in the Bible have a high amount of objective value. Until spirituality has the power to alter scientific law, objective reality, and secular logic, then I don't put any weight upon this aspect of the bible.
I see the bible in a purely objective sense, in that it functions in many ways regardless of the existence of God. I don't care about the spiritual parts because these don't produce real results. The blessing of a priest does not actually endow anyone with better health, magical protection, or any sorts of miraculous or supernatural effects that can be seen and measured in the real world.
I'm not saying that spirituality is bullshit, I'm just saying that since it doesn't produce objective, measurable results in the real world, it's not relevant in arguments about what should be done within the physical reality in which we live.
You're a very good sport, and I sort of appreciate it. It's hard to deal with somebody so driven to actually argue their points in a kind, peaceful, and friendly manner.
The issue we have in arguing is that you argue "pure spiritual" and I argue "pure objective". We fail to cede to each other's points because these two forms of logic function in wildly different ways.
Basically like a big meaty person trying to fist fight with a ghost. The person's punches don't hit the ghost, and the ghosts punches don't hit the person.
I mean, I dont have much to say. This statement here says it all. "You are not obligated to do what God commands you to do." Ok.
> Christianity is about a relationship with God, not about encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial/harmful behavior
This is the major issue with Christianity. The point of religion is encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial/harmful behavior. When Christianty does not do this, Christianity does not objectively qualify as a religion by secular logic.
When you're not a religion, yet you hold mystical, supernatural, theistic, or otherwise superstitious beliefs, you are a cult. That's the difference between a cult and a religion.
A religion by default exists as a valid religion, only when it successfully encourages social/beneficial behavior and punishes or reduces antisocial/harmful behavior.
That's it.
My argument has nothing to do with mysticism or spirituality. There is nothing relevant to souls, heaven, angels, magic, or the other parts of the story.
By my argument, the Bible is just a book. By my standards, Jesus is just a person.
> "Historical examples only become typological when they are supported by a direct teaching to make them so, which is not the case here. You would have to identify a NT text that endorses what you're saying. "
This is the major flaw with Christianity. You literally condemn God himself, you disregard God, and instead listen only to Jesus. If Jesus were in fact God, then Jesus would never have contradicted God, Jesus never would have said anything that makes God hypocritical, a liar, or otherwise wrong.
If God commands you to destroy the Canaanites, and Jesus is in fact God, then Jesus himself also commands you to destroy the Canaanites. These are Commandments from God, and when Jesus is the same individual as God, these are commandments from Jesus himself.
This is the issue with Christians, if Jesus was God, why isn't God still God? That's nonsense. Even if Jesus was God, that doesn't make anything he said 1,000 years earlier any less true or binding. That's the issue. The Christians use Jesus to abandon God, and assert that the word of Jesus is somehow superior to that of God.
At best, if Jesus was God, that means Jesus was always the same thing as God. That means the world of Jesus would be equally as valid as the word of God, spoken by God himself.
This also means that both God and Jesus being omniscient and all-knowing, that God has never said or commanded anything that is Contrary to the teachings of Jesus, and that Jesus has never said of taught anything that is contrary to the commandments of God. These two forces cannot rival, compete with, or contradict one another when these are the exact same people.
That's the issue with trying to abandon the commandments of God from the old testament when Jesus doesn't directly speak to them.
Again. The secular, objective, and scientific value from the Bible comes largely from the Old Testament. These are basic constraints that when placed upon society provide benefit and reduce harm.
The benefit of the teachings of Jesus are far less applicable and beneficial in a secular sense unless you find yourself disenfranchised and powerless. If you attempt to govern a society with the teachings of Jesus you destroy it. Jesus teaches you how to survive against the odds, to survive when powerless. The strategies that somebody who is powerless and threatened must use to survivea and thrive are very different from the strategies that people must use when they have a substantial amount of power and are entrusted with governing society.
This is all about the context of the teaching. God teaches the Israelites how to run society when they are in charge and hold power. Jesus teaches his followers, powerless and oppressed people, how to survive despite being surrounded by vice, corruption, apostasy, and godlessness.
These teachings cannot be the overarching principles of a society because they don't function in a secular sense. Again, nothing here is about spirituality or magic or anything like that. This is just secular, objective reasoning.
When you compare the two sets of principles that people could emulate. Those of the Old Testament, and those of Jesus, it's just obvious, in a purely secular manner, that the teachings of Jesus are very dysfunctional if you attempt to rule a society with them. The teachings of the Old Testament are very dysfunctional when you try to apply them as a powerless individual.
The context of these teachings is very important. There is no strategy that works 100% of the time no matter way. Different situations need people to use different strategies in order to be successful.
This isn't about spirituality. Spirituality is completely irrelevant here.
Until the magic of Jesus reliably changes and alters scientific laws, the arguments related to spirituality are completely irrelevant. These things don't produce and objective effects, so they are completely irrelevant when making objective judgements.
This argument is hard for me because you are a purely faith-based, spiritualistic, mystic sort of believer. You don't see the objective secular value that is created by the bible, the parts that provide value to society objectively, without any sort of relevance of significance being given to the spiritual effects of following this advice. This advice is just good advice in general, and the fact that God gives this advice doesn't make it any better (or worse) than if anyone else said it.
I take things entirely at their objective value, and many things in the Bible have a high amount of objective value. Until spirituality has the power to alter scientific law, objective reality, and secular logic, then I don't put any weight upon this aspect of the bible.
I see the bible in a purely objective sense, in that it functions in many ways regardless of the existence of God. I don't care about the spiritual parts because these don't produce real results. The blessing of a priest does not actually endow anyone with better health, magical protection, or any sorts of miraculous or supernatural effects that can be seen and measured in the real world.
I'm not saying that spirituality is bullshit, I'm just saying that since it doesn't produce objective, measurable results in the real world, it's not relevant in arguments about what should be done within the physical reality in which we live.
You're a very good sport, and I sort of appreciate it. It's hard to deal with somebody so driven to actually argue their points in a kind, peaceful, and friendly manner.
The issue we have in arguing is that you argue "pure spiritual" and I argue "pure objective". We fail to cede to each other's points because these two forms of logic function in wildly different ways.
Basically like a big meaty person trying to fist fight with a ghost. The person's punches don't hit the ghost, and the ghosts punches don't hit the person.
- Marzipan
Re: The teachings of Jesus are often misinterpreted
by jimwalton » Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:48 pm
> I mean, I dont have much to say.
You don't have much to say because you don't realize that "law" in the ancient world meant something very different from what "law" means now, and the way they looked at law, treated law, and used law was a completely different entity than now. Now we treat law as legislation; then law was wisdom.
> "You are not obligated to do what God commands you to do." Ok.
We are not obligated to the OT law. Our "law" is the example of Jesus. It's not legislation but rather following a person.
> The point of religion is encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial/harmful behavior.
This will be the third time I said, "It is NOT." The point of Christianity is a love relationship with the God who made us.
> When Christianty does not do this, Christianity does not objectively qualify as a religion by secular logic.
Christianity never intends to do this. Christianity is about freedom from sin and forgiveness for it, and to make possible a relationship with God. It is not about encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial/harmful behavior.
> A religion by default exists as a valid religion, only when it successfully encourages social/beneficial behavior and punishes or reduces antisocial/harmful behavior.
I disagree, and strongly. For instance, Hinduism has little or nothing to do with encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial behavior. It's about emptying oneself and achieving Nirvana. Christianity, also, is about a relationship with God, not forming a moral society. Religion is about connecting with God, not about social vs. antisocial behavior.
> My argument has nothing to do with mysticism or spirituality. There is nothing relevant to souls, heaven, angels, magic, or the other parts of the story.
Well, no wonder you don't understand what religion is really all about. It's like me claiming that the purpose of government is about having a winning sports team. And you could argue until you're blue in the face how wrong I am, until I said, "My argument has nothing to do with legislation, the judiciary, or executive powers." Well, no wonder.
> By my argument, the Bible is just a book. By my standards, Jesus is just a person.
Yeah, I could tell. Again, you've missed the whole point to create your own.
> You literally condemn God himself, you disregard God, and instead listen only to Jesus.
Oh, this isn't true at all, either. I worship God. I love God. I obey God. And I follow Jesus. They are all the same package in Christianity.
> If Jesus were in fact God, then Jesus would never have contradicted God, Jesus never would have said anything that makes God hypocritical, a liar, or otherwise wrong.
It's true that Jesus didn't do these things. We'd have to discuss the specifics, though. Speaking about these things in generalities doesn't take us anywhere.
> If God commands you to destroy the Canaanites, and Jesus is in fact God, then Jesus himself also commands you to destroy the Canaanites.
You're not allowing for process. Because God wanted to free the Israelites from slavery to Egypt, it doesn't mean he also wants to free me from Egyptian slavery. That's not my situation, and it doesn't apply to me. God told Abraham not to accept any gift from Abimelech. That's not my situation and doesn't apply to me, either.
> if Jesus was God, why isn't God still God?
He is. Jesus is God, and God is still God. It's Trinitarian theology, with which I imagine you're familiar (possibly).
> The Christians use Jesus to abandon God
This isn't true, either. Jesus and YHWH are the same essence.
> That means the world of Jesus would be equally as valid as the word of God, spoken by God himself.
Correct. This is true. The word of Jesus is equally as valid as the word of YHWH.
> That's the issue with trying to abandon the commandments of God from the old testament when Jesus doesn't directly speak to them.
It doesn't have to do with Jesus speaking directly to them or not. The NT doesn't have the job of either affirming or disaffirming the information from the OT. The NT is there to reveal Christ, and therefore it's not a criterion for determining OT law. The more pertinent question is "What is the nature of the OT law?" First of all, it's pertinent to ancient law. Secondly, it's situated in the old covenant, and pertains to that covenant. It's telling how Israel should act based on the culture of the day. Third, it pertains to sacred space. We can't extract the law from those contexts. Just because it's in the OT doesn't mean it's a law for all time. It doesn't legislate for us.
It pertained to their (Israelite) covenant. It would be like saying, should America fall one day, would we or any other future person still live by our constitution and Bill of Rights? Of course not. That's for us. But aren't there good, noble, and moral ideas in it? Sure there are, but such things are defunct when the nation falls. We might still recognize the morality of certain elements, but we would no longer live under that agreement.
We still recognize that adultery is wrong. That's the part that is legal wisdom for us now. But we deal with it in our own way, not in their way.
> If you attempt to govern a society with the teachings of Jesus you destroy it.
The teachings of Jesus were never intended as governing principles.
> Jesus teaches you how to survive against the odds, to survive when powerless.
Wrong again. Jesus teaches us how to have a covenant relationship with God and to live "in Him."
> This is all about the context of the teaching. God teaches the Israelites how to run society when they are in charge and hold power. Jesus teaches his followers, powerless and oppressed people, how to survive despite being surrounded by vice, corruption, apostasy, and godlessness.
We've been through how misguided this thinking is. I'm assuming at this point you're going to stick to your opinion against all evidence.
> Until the magic of Jesus reliably changes and alters scientific laws, the arguments related to spirituality are completely irrelevant.
Sigh.
> I see the bible in a purely objective sense, in that it functions in many ways regardless of the existence of God.
Then you've missed the ENTIRE book.
> you argue "pure spiritual" and I argue "pure objective"
It's not objective to pit "spiritual" against "objective" as if they are antithetical. That's like me arguing, "Well, see, we don't agree because I'm arguing 'truth' and you're arguing 'sports.' " It's neither a fair nor objective way to frame the discussion or our disagreements.
> We fail to cede to each other's points because these two forms of logic function in wildly different ways.
Actually, logic is consistent. If they're wildly different, at least one of us is not using logic.
You don't have much to say because you don't realize that "law" in the ancient world meant something very different from what "law" means now, and the way they looked at law, treated law, and used law was a completely different entity than now. Now we treat law as legislation; then law was wisdom.
> "You are not obligated to do what God commands you to do." Ok.
We are not obligated to the OT law. Our "law" is the example of Jesus. It's not legislation but rather following a person.
> The point of religion is encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial/harmful behavior.
This will be the third time I said, "It is NOT." The point of Christianity is a love relationship with the God who made us.
> When Christianty does not do this, Christianity does not objectively qualify as a religion by secular logic.
Christianity never intends to do this. Christianity is about freedom from sin and forgiveness for it, and to make possible a relationship with God. It is not about encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial/harmful behavior.
> A religion by default exists as a valid religion, only when it successfully encourages social/beneficial behavior and punishes or reduces antisocial/harmful behavior.
I disagree, and strongly. For instance, Hinduism has little or nothing to do with encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial behavior. It's about emptying oneself and achieving Nirvana. Christianity, also, is about a relationship with God, not forming a moral society. Religion is about connecting with God, not about social vs. antisocial behavior.
> My argument has nothing to do with mysticism or spirituality. There is nothing relevant to souls, heaven, angels, magic, or the other parts of the story.
Well, no wonder you don't understand what religion is really all about. It's like me claiming that the purpose of government is about having a winning sports team. And you could argue until you're blue in the face how wrong I am, until I said, "My argument has nothing to do with legislation, the judiciary, or executive powers." Well, no wonder.
> By my argument, the Bible is just a book. By my standards, Jesus is just a person.
Yeah, I could tell. Again, you've missed the whole point to create your own.
> You literally condemn God himself, you disregard God, and instead listen only to Jesus.
Oh, this isn't true at all, either. I worship God. I love God. I obey God. And I follow Jesus. They are all the same package in Christianity.
> If Jesus were in fact God, then Jesus would never have contradicted God, Jesus never would have said anything that makes God hypocritical, a liar, or otherwise wrong.
It's true that Jesus didn't do these things. We'd have to discuss the specifics, though. Speaking about these things in generalities doesn't take us anywhere.
> If God commands you to destroy the Canaanites, and Jesus is in fact God, then Jesus himself also commands you to destroy the Canaanites.
You're not allowing for process. Because God wanted to free the Israelites from slavery to Egypt, it doesn't mean he also wants to free me from Egyptian slavery. That's not my situation, and it doesn't apply to me. God told Abraham not to accept any gift from Abimelech. That's not my situation and doesn't apply to me, either.
> if Jesus was God, why isn't God still God?
He is. Jesus is God, and God is still God. It's Trinitarian theology, with which I imagine you're familiar (possibly).
> The Christians use Jesus to abandon God
This isn't true, either. Jesus and YHWH are the same essence.
> That means the world of Jesus would be equally as valid as the word of God, spoken by God himself.
Correct. This is true. The word of Jesus is equally as valid as the word of YHWH.
> That's the issue with trying to abandon the commandments of God from the old testament when Jesus doesn't directly speak to them.
It doesn't have to do with Jesus speaking directly to them or not. The NT doesn't have the job of either affirming or disaffirming the information from the OT. The NT is there to reveal Christ, and therefore it's not a criterion for determining OT law. The more pertinent question is "What is the nature of the OT law?" First of all, it's pertinent to ancient law. Secondly, it's situated in the old covenant, and pertains to that covenant. It's telling how Israel should act based on the culture of the day. Third, it pertains to sacred space. We can't extract the law from those contexts. Just because it's in the OT doesn't mean it's a law for all time. It doesn't legislate for us.
It pertained to their (Israelite) covenant. It would be like saying, should America fall one day, would we or any other future person still live by our constitution and Bill of Rights? Of course not. That's for us. But aren't there good, noble, and moral ideas in it? Sure there are, but such things are defunct when the nation falls. We might still recognize the morality of certain elements, but we would no longer live under that agreement.
We still recognize that adultery is wrong. That's the part that is legal wisdom for us now. But we deal with it in our own way, not in their way.
> If you attempt to govern a society with the teachings of Jesus you destroy it.
The teachings of Jesus were never intended as governing principles.
> Jesus teaches you how to survive against the odds, to survive when powerless.
Wrong again. Jesus teaches us how to have a covenant relationship with God and to live "in Him."
> This is all about the context of the teaching. God teaches the Israelites how to run society when they are in charge and hold power. Jesus teaches his followers, powerless and oppressed people, how to survive despite being surrounded by vice, corruption, apostasy, and godlessness.
We've been through how misguided this thinking is. I'm assuming at this point you're going to stick to your opinion against all evidence.
> Until the magic of Jesus reliably changes and alters scientific laws, the arguments related to spirituality are completely irrelevant.
Sigh.
> I see the bible in a purely objective sense, in that it functions in many ways regardless of the existence of God.
Then you've missed the ENTIRE book.
> you argue "pure spiritual" and I argue "pure objective"
It's not objective to pit "spiritual" against "objective" as if they are antithetical. That's like me arguing, "Well, see, we don't agree because I'm arguing 'truth' and you're arguing 'sports.' " It's neither a fair nor objective way to frame the discussion or our disagreements.
> We fail to cede to each other's points because these two forms of logic function in wildly different ways.
Actually, logic is consistent. If they're wildly different, at least one of us is not using logic.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: The teachings of Jesus are often misinterpreted
by Marzipan » Sun Dec 15, 2019 2:57 pm
> "Now we treat law as legislation; then law was wisdom." - Legislating is just a means to an end of producing laws, the laws function in the same way, even if we create them and derive them by different means.
Laws are just "constraints placed upon society that limit individual freedoms in order to benefit society as a whole". This is all laws do, this is why Abrahamic laws were able to create a functional society, and this is why American laws were able to create a functional society.
This definition of law readily produces the definition of morality, which is identical to the definition of law in this sense.
American legislation has deviated from this standard, this recipe for laws, and instead protects anti-social actions in the name of freedom and liberty. These protections are signed into law, but logically they don't function as laws.
These individual protections harm society, they benefit the individual at the expense of society as a whole, and doing this is the antithesis of morality, functions as the antithesis of law, and is generally a terrible idea. Asserting individual liberty and self-interest over functional law that protects society is the story of the fall of Lucifer, but despite this, American law endlessly protects the individual even when this harms society.
> "It is NOT." The point of Christianity."
The thing is I'm not arguing about the point of christianity. I'm basically just arguing that Christianity does not function as a religion and does not qualify as a religion. That's it. I argue "This pastry does not qualify as a cake.", you say "The point of a pastry is not to be a cake.", which is a fine and valid point, but this is largely you agreeing with me, and your own irreverence towards religious law, reinforces the point that Christianity is a purely spiritual belief that doesn't function as a religion, while it did at the point when the laws of the Old Testament were still respected by society.
The issue with the "relationship with God" argument is that in a secular sense, God doesn't do anything. Religion functions and produces change within society on a physical level, while God himself does little if any magic or miracles to actually change anything.
When God doesn't do anything, this makes any sort of notions or arguments about God irrelevant. God, a relationship with god, or anything spiritual like that is functionally irrelevant from the actual function and purpose of religion.
Religion, in terms of the spiritual or superstitious parts, is a means to indoctrinate people to be moral individuals. Morality is the actual legitimizing part about religion. It's never that God does miracles when you worship him. It's that morality measurably produces legitimate results within a society filled with moral individuals.
God and heaven is essentially the carrot on the stick. The horse chases that carrot, and even though the carrot doesn't do anything but float in the air, the horse still runs after it. It is the action of the horse running that is the valuable effect here. Having a carrot on a stick dangling in front of a rock isn't going to do anything. The horse running symbolizes people maintaining a moral society, essentially running after the salvation offered by God as a reward for being good people.
> "Hinduism has little or nothing to do with encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial behavior. It's about emptying oneself and achieving Nirvana. " - This is Buddhism, which also follows the teachings of Confucius, who establishes very strict social and behavioral expectations for the people. Hinduism also has a very strong set of laws that define it.
> "Well, no wonder you don't understand what religion is really all about. It's like me claiming that the purpose of government is about having a winning sports team." -
This is not a valid point of comparison in the slightest. The government and the sports teams are both physical objects within the world. They are both hard, countable, measurable entities.
The difference here is that God, souls, spirituality, and all of the other parts of religion that cannot be measured or counted by science, are clearly not a relevant force acting upon the world which is entirely quantifiable by hard science.
Regarldess of any spiritual faith, this is not the point. I'm arguing that the physical actions of people are what create society, not the magic or miracles of God. Understanding that people's actions, independent of divine intervention, are what produced society, we can understand that there is value in religion that functions completely independently from the divine intervention of God.
That's what I'm arguing. I separate the divine and the non-divine. The non-divine results of religion are very real. Even if science somehow proved that God does not exist and has never existed, religions such as the Abrahamic faith will still be valid, correct, and legitimate.
I"m arguing that the value of religion does not hinge on the existence of God. The divine entity of God is not relevant at all to the actual physical science of religion, which is a means to orchestrate society by placing constraints upon individual behavior in a manner that benefits society as a whole even if this is at a cost to the individual.
> "It pertained to their (Israelite) covenant. It would be like saying, should America fall one day, would we or any other future person still live by our constitution and Bill of Rights? Of course not." -
This is a decent point, I can see what point you're trying to make.
I'm not arguing that there is some form of obligation to follow these laws. I'm arguing that the religious laws are just functional in and of themselves. That's my entire argument.
Religious laws in the Old Testament are basically wheels for society. They are round wheels, they roll very well. They help society move along much more smoothly and much more easily than a lack of wheels.
The way your argument plays out is "We create round wheels for our society today. When our soceity falls, would anyone else need to use round wheels rather than square wheels or triangle wheels? No, those wheels are designed only for our society."
This is silly, because the function of the round wheels is independent of where they come from or who said them.
If Ted Bundy invented the round wheel, the fact that Bundy was a murderer doesn't change anything about the wheels. The wheel functions independently from Ted Bundy, despite the fact that Bundy invented the wheel.
The same is true about the Old Testament. Just like wheels, these laws function independent from anything else.
It doesn't matter who made these wheels. These round wheels for society function entirely due to the fact that they are round wheels, not due to any sort of relevance to the person who made them.
If the laws in Deuteronomy were spoken by an anthropomorphic log of shit in a public train-station bathroom, spoken by this log of shit to to a homeless man who was shooting up heroin, these laws would still be equally as valid as when they are spoken by God.
The laws function entirely due to the fact that they are good laws. They function because they fit the functional secular definition of moral law as described at the top of the post. It is completely irrelevant who said these laws. That's the point I'm trying to make.
> "It's not objective to pit "spiritual" against "objective" as if they are antithetical. That's like me arguing, "Well, see, we don't agree because I'm arguing 'truth' and you're arguing 'sports.' "
Again, you fail to see the difference between objective reality, just every day science, and divine supernatural events such as miracles, things that we cannot and have never been able to measure or analyze with science.
There is a reason why divine intervention and miracles are not respected within the scientific community. Science has never measured or been able to analyze these things, so we can readily understand that miracles and divine intervention have very little effect upon the day to day affairs of people.
Rather than objective, let me use the word empirical.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/empirical
There are countless things we have measured to the finest detail within the world. The miracles and divine intervention performed by God are not among these things. Despite thorough measurement of anything and everything we can measure, we have yet to measure the influence of God upon our world.
Objective, as in opposed to subjective. The influence of God upon society is purely subjective, constricted entirely to the human experience within the human mind. This is why I argue spiritual arguments are not objective.
> "Actually, logic is consistent. "
Both of us use consistent logic, yes. It's just that your logic is basically "Reality + Divine intervention" together, while my logic does not include divine intervention.
This means that you are able to logically deduce points within your system of logic that cannot be validated by my own logic. We just use two different systems of logic, not that either of us uses invalid logic.
Hopefully this makes my points clearer. Especially the story about the anthropomorphic log of shit, the comparison to wheels. The Wheels function because they're round, not because God made them. They would still function just as well if Satan, a log of shit, or anything else made those wheels.
I see far more value in the functional wheels of morality produced by the bible, where you see more value in the spiritual belief in God and things like that.
If I'm sitting here trying to get something done, I'm going to try to find some functional wheels and put those into good use doing real physical labor, I'm not going to pray for a miracle to solve my problem.
Laws are just "constraints placed upon society that limit individual freedoms in order to benefit society as a whole". This is all laws do, this is why Abrahamic laws were able to create a functional society, and this is why American laws were able to create a functional society.
This definition of law readily produces the definition of morality, which is identical to the definition of law in this sense.
American legislation has deviated from this standard, this recipe for laws, and instead protects anti-social actions in the name of freedom and liberty. These protections are signed into law, but logically they don't function as laws.
These individual protections harm society, they benefit the individual at the expense of society as a whole, and doing this is the antithesis of morality, functions as the antithesis of law, and is generally a terrible idea. Asserting individual liberty and self-interest over functional law that protects society is the story of the fall of Lucifer, but despite this, American law endlessly protects the individual even when this harms society.
> "It is NOT." The point of Christianity."
The thing is I'm not arguing about the point of christianity. I'm basically just arguing that Christianity does not function as a religion and does not qualify as a religion. That's it. I argue "This pastry does not qualify as a cake.", you say "The point of a pastry is not to be a cake.", which is a fine and valid point, but this is largely you agreeing with me, and your own irreverence towards religious law, reinforces the point that Christianity is a purely spiritual belief that doesn't function as a religion, while it did at the point when the laws of the Old Testament were still respected by society.
The issue with the "relationship with God" argument is that in a secular sense, God doesn't do anything. Religion functions and produces change within society on a physical level, while God himself does little if any magic or miracles to actually change anything.
When God doesn't do anything, this makes any sort of notions or arguments about God irrelevant. God, a relationship with god, or anything spiritual like that is functionally irrelevant from the actual function and purpose of religion.
Religion, in terms of the spiritual or superstitious parts, is a means to indoctrinate people to be moral individuals. Morality is the actual legitimizing part about religion. It's never that God does miracles when you worship him. It's that morality measurably produces legitimate results within a society filled with moral individuals.
God and heaven is essentially the carrot on the stick. The horse chases that carrot, and even though the carrot doesn't do anything but float in the air, the horse still runs after it. It is the action of the horse running that is the valuable effect here. Having a carrot on a stick dangling in front of a rock isn't going to do anything. The horse running symbolizes people maintaining a moral society, essentially running after the salvation offered by God as a reward for being good people.
> "Hinduism has little or nothing to do with encouraging social/beneficial behavior and punishing antisocial behavior. It's about emptying oneself and achieving Nirvana. " - This is Buddhism, which also follows the teachings of Confucius, who establishes very strict social and behavioral expectations for the people. Hinduism also has a very strong set of laws that define it.
> "Well, no wonder you don't understand what religion is really all about. It's like me claiming that the purpose of government is about having a winning sports team." -
This is not a valid point of comparison in the slightest. The government and the sports teams are both physical objects within the world. They are both hard, countable, measurable entities.
The difference here is that God, souls, spirituality, and all of the other parts of religion that cannot be measured or counted by science, are clearly not a relevant force acting upon the world which is entirely quantifiable by hard science.
Regarldess of any spiritual faith, this is not the point. I'm arguing that the physical actions of people are what create society, not the magic or miracles of God. Understanding that people's actions, independent of divine intervention, are what produced society, we can understand that there is value in religion that functions completely independently from the divine intervention of God.
That's what I'm arguing. I separate the divine and the non-divine. The non-divine results of religion are very real. Even if science somehow proved that God does not exist and has never existed, religions such as the Abrahamic faith will still be valid, correct, and legitimate.
I"m arguing that the value of religion does not hinge on the existence of God. The divine entity of God is not relevant at all to the actual physical science of religion, which is a means to orchestrate society by placing constraints upon individual behavior in a manner that benefits society as a whole even if this is at a cost to the individual.
> "It pertained to their (Israelite) covenant. It would be like saying, should America fall one day, would we or any other future person still live by our constitution and Bill of Rights? Of course not." -
This is a decent point, I can see what point you're trying to make.
I'm not arguing that there is some form of obligation to follow these laws. I'm arguing that the religious laws are just functional in and of themselves. That's my entire argument.
Religious laws in the Old Testament are basically wheels for society. They are round wheels, they roll very well. They help society move along much more smoothly and much more easily than a lack of wheels.
The way your argument plays out is "We create round wheels for our society today. When our soceity falls, would anyone else need to use round wheels rather than square wheels or triangle wheels? No, those wheels are designed only for our society."
This is silly, because the function of the round wheels is independent of where they come from or who said them.
If Ted Bundy invented the round wheel, the fact that Bundy was a murderer doesn't change anything about the wheels. The wheel functions independently from Ted Bundy, despite the fact that Bundy invented the wheel.
The same is true about the Old Testament. Just like wheels, these laws function independent from anything else.
It doesn't matter who made these wheels. These round wheels for society function entirely due to the fact that they are round wheels, not due to any sort of relevance to the person who made them.
If the laws in Deuteronomy were spoken by an anthropomorphic log of shit in a public train-station bathroom, spoken by this log of shit to to a homeless man who was shooting up heroin, these laws would still be equally as valid as when they are spoken by God.
The laws function entirely due to the fact that they are good laws. They function because they fit the functional secular definition of moral law as described at the top of the post. It is completely irrelevant who said these laws. That's the point I'm trying to make.
> "It's not objective to pit "spiritual" against "objective" as if they are antithetical. That's like me arguing, "Well, see, we don't agree because I'm arguing 'truth' and you're arguing 'sports.' "
Again, you fail to see the difference between objective reality, just every day science, and divine supernatural events such as miracles, things that we cannot and have never been able to measure or analyze with science.
There is a reason why divine intervention and miracles are not respected within the scientific community. Science has never measured or been able to analyze these things, so we can readily understand that miracles and divine intervention have very little effect upon the day to day affairs of people.
Rather than objective, let me use the word empirical.
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/empirical
There are countless things we have measured to the finest detail within the world. The miracles and divine intervention performed by God are not among these things. Despite thorough measurement of anything and everything we can measure, we have yet to measure the influence of God upon our world.
Objective, as in opposed to subjective. The influence of God upon society is purely subjective, constricted entirely to the human experience within the human mind. This is why I argue spiritual arguments are not objective.
> "Actually, logic is consistent. "
Both of us use consistent logic, yes. It's just that your logic is basically "Reality + Divine intervention" together, while my logic does not include divine intervention.
This means that you are able to logically deduce points within your system of logic that cannot be validated by my own logic. We just use two different systems of logic, not that either of us uses invalid logic.
Hopefully this makes my points clearer. Especially the story about the anthropomorphic log of shit, the comparison to wheels. The Wheels function because they're round, not because God made them. They would still function just as well if Satan, a log of shit, or anything else made those wheels.
I see far more value in the functional wheels of morality produced by the bible, where you see more value in the spiritual belief in God and things like that.
If I'm sitting here trying to get something done, I'm going to try to find some functional wheels and put those into good use doing real physical labor, I'm not going to pray for a miracle to solve my problem.
- Marzipan
Re: The teachings of Jesus are often misinterpreted
by Scape211 » Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:20 am
Marzipan wrote:Regarldess of any spiritual faith, this is not the point. I'm arguing that the physical actions of people are what create society, not the magic or miracles of God. Understanding that people's actions, independent of divine intervention, are what produced society, we can understand that there is value in religion that functions completely independently from the divine intervention of God.
That's what I'm arguing. I separate the divine and the non-divine. The non-divine results of religion are very real. Even if science somehow proved that God does not exist and has never existed, religions such as the Abrahamic faith will still be valid, correct, and legitimate.
I"m arguing that the value of religion does not hinge on the existence of God. The divine entity of God is not relevant at all to the actual physical science of religion, which is a means to orchestrate society by placing constraints upon individual behavior in a manner that benefits society as a whole even if this is at a cost to the individual.
I dont think anyone disagrees with the idea that religion can bring about beneficial elements to society. Things like treat others fairly, be kind, don't lie/steal/cheat. But these are by products within religion. Once you take away the core of religion which hinges on a spiritual element, its no longer called religion. So the example you have of the Abrahamic faith does provide useful elements to society, but if science or some other method somehow disproved God, then it would no longer be called or considered the Abrahamic faith. It wouldn't be religion anymore. We would call it something like Abrahamic government or society and use it to govern a people within. Simply put - the core of religion and faith has to do with either worship of a supernatural being(s) or the connection to the spiritual. Take that away and its no longer called religion.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:20 am.
- Scape211
- Posts: 128
- Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2018 12:18 pm
16 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests