No they don’t apparently, as I have shown Jesus endorse ALL old testament laws.
Well there you go, quod erat demonstrandum.
https://religions.wiki/index.php/Differences_between_the_Gospels_and_the_epistles
I’ve got better things to do than talk to a dishonest dweeb who has not even read his bible. (3 days… ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…) Have you ever picked up one of the books and read it?
Check in with Bart Eherman or Richard Carrier have to say on the subject. Cite your two rules that have been consistant since the first century or go away.
1
2
So which teaching Jesus are you arbitrarily setting aside? As this rather destroys your previous claim? Can we assume this one is being ignored?
what makes you think i am setting aside any elements of jesus teachings?
ah… no.
The verse you highlight is the crux of my whole argument. it makes what i am teaching here work. since you brought it up this is not preaching i will use the very same passage you posted, and walk you though it.
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 .
So you seem to be well versed… what did Jesus say on the cross just before he died. “IT IS FINISHED.” Kinda a weird thing to say no? And again this does not abolish the law… the law remain even today.
As he said nothing will change UNTIL IT IS FINISHED… That Until is where my whole message sits, and it is where arguments like yours begin to fall apart. because if no change was ever meant to happen the word “until”
or ἕως héōs, heh’-oce; of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place):—even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s).
would not be needed.
Then according to the rest of the verse something will change… now to recap. we have a declaration that nothing is to change until it is finished, and we denote a point of completion word for word at the time Jesus dies, which is significant because it is our core belief he died to provide the iota/jot that is to change when it is all complete.
Meaning this is the verse that separate ot judaism from nt christianity. Christ died to forgive us of our sins. jews had to atone for their sin.
Again this change is made while the law was/is all intact. (paul explain this in detail in romans 6, 7 and 8 if you are interested.) but in short what changed is not the law. BUT how we are found righteous with the law.
OT jews had to follow the law to become righteous.
NT christians are found righteous not by our ability to follow the law (As christ has said all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God) but through atonement. that is what changed. Through atonement the law while it still exists and counts against everyone not saved. it is made moot by the blood of christ. So for the christ the law exists to show we need atonement not as some ‘moral’ list of things to follow to try and earn righteousness, but rather we are made righteous through the atonement provided by Christ in True Agape’ love.
so the short bus answer is The law remains. Christ came and died to provide atonement for sins, this mission was completed at the cross when he died. (HE even said so with his last breaths) which coincides with the mat 5 passage nothing will change until he is finished. After he dies and upon his resurrection we are given the complete picture of atonement. explain how sin and forgiveness works for the believer. So again the law remains for the unsaved to be judged by (all of it) and is made moot/pardoned by christ for those who believe.
This is how/why ot judaism and nt christianity arenot the same. I have a video i made on this if you need a deeper walk though
thus it is a bare appeal to numbers, an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Here it is again…and if it is rhetorical you shouldn’t have put a question mark at the end.
Again the appeal to numbers was a reflection of how you personally judged the validity or viability of the religion. the rhetorical question demonstrated to you specifically that you were the one participating in a logical fallacy when you attempted to discount the viability of the church when you compared it to earlier innerations. So perhaps you should take the plank out of you eye and stop looking for trigger words to based this debate on.
That’s just an unevidenced subjective opinion you’ve offered?
perhaps you should google the word opinion and the word subjective as it is not used correctly in this sentence.
My assertion was a promise made in the bible and kept witnessed by 2000 years of personal testimonies. just because god did not respond to you personally doesn’t make you the litmus test of what is ‘subjective.’
You don’t get to tell me what standard of evidence I require to believe any claim, and I already pointed out it is the same for all claims. If you wish to use a lower standard that’s your business, but you came here to make assertions about that belief, so I get to decide if I accept your assertions or not, and what standard I think is apropos, and I see no rational reason to lower my bar for belief because for religious claims, just because theists want to.
that’s where you are wrong again. because let’s say you were some pompous little man who spent his whole life studying and making discoveries in the outer universe. And i said there is another universe equally as expansive but on the microside. you being not you, but a pompous ass says i’ve been looking through my telescopes for 50 years and never seen anything like what i’ve describe.
I then say your instruments are useless, you have to look through mine… and here is where you come in and say: “You don’t get to tell me what standard of evidence I require to believe any claim, and I already pointed out it is the same for all claims. If you wish to use a lower standard that’s your business, but you came here to make assertions about that belief, so I get to decide if I accept your assertions or not, and what standard I think is apropos, and I see no rational reason to lower my bar for belief because for microverse claims, just because some pseudo scientist wants to.”
Here’s the thing my guy, i’m the expert here and i am the one who has the experience and knows what tool you need to find what i have found, and i’m telling the tool box you have is designed to hide god from you.
perhaps you should look up objective as well. you seem stuck on only one definition of the word. never mind here you go: Objective | Definition of Objective by Merriam-Webster
check out definition 1… i have you an unemotional completely objective accounting of my experience.
I’m sorry I thought i did. maybe you just heard them so much you glanced over them.
mark 12:
28 One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
29 “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.[a] 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[b] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[c] There is no commandment greater than these.”
Why does every topic I make attract Theist idiots like Drich. He’s polluting the thread with his bullshit. This was a question to my fellow Atheist / Agnostic friends and members. If I wanted the opinion of a Christian, I’d walk into a Church and ask. I didn’t.
i’ve said that from my first post. church doctrine is forever changing. this passage in mat 5 allows for change. so long as you retain the core teachings/gospel of christ.
the message of christ/god is never clear to… people not directly following him.
for those who do not know/understand the law. the law was subdivided into three catagories. The moral law which more or less embodies the 10 commandments.
the civial law. these are the rules that contain how to dress what foods to eat, how to stay clean and yes slavery. and then you have the ceremonial law. this is about worship services and how to praise god and how the priests were to be chosen and so fourth.
So no… Jesus did not think a civil law was a moral law. Jesus as well as most sunday schoolers understand the difference between morality and bronze age civility.
Yet mainstream Christian churches and many christians have changed their views on this core doctrine, quod erat demonstrandum.
actually, they created doctrine… this is why it is important to refer back to the original greek texts as i did here. this shows the difference between what was originally written and it’s indented use and what some well meaning preacher may have messed up and said.
your arguement fails to address the points i made when i shared that homosexuality was not singled out. so understand God’s expectation is not that you can follow the law (I See you did not read the suggested reading in the book of romans) but rather seek atonement. again Christ full filled the law to include thought. he say to lust after a woman is the same as having sex with her. Again the driving expectation in the completion of the law for any logically minded person would be to seek an alternative way of being found righteous if it is impossible to follow the law to righteousness/morality. That alternative is atonement.
No they don’t apparently, as I have shown Jesus endorse ALL old testament laws.
actually you failed here. you showed nothing was to be changed till it was complete. then again on the cross jesus said it was complete. upon his resurrection he then gave instructions to seek out and obtain atonement which again shows and supports a change in how believers are to observe the law. the laws that remains to judge ‘you good people’ while it has followers seek out atonement.
this is christianity 101 you can not deny christ on the cross= forgiveness for all christians. and jews had to follow the law which included sacrifice. two totally different paradigms but if you reading was correct then christianity would wholy be in violation of your reading of mat 5.
Any man who must say, “I am the expert here” is no true expert. We’ll make sure you understand that when you leave here.
I don’t like how you preach to us about people you believe to exist and you act as though you don’t know what a non-believer / Atheist is. Your opinions and beliefs are not factual. Quit speaking as if they were.
Some of us don’t want to hear how you think your deity exists. That might be all good and fun for you. But when you talk about God and Jesus. You just sound crazy. Anything and everything from your Bible is fictional to me. Complete bullshit until you can you provide real evidence. Like I told the last guy, a Christian I know in my town. Unless you can go dig up Jesus or find this fictional / imaginary friend of yours. We’re all unconvinced with your claims and assertions.
If you could prove beyond a doubt that your deity exists. I’d be a devout follower. But the bible is a claim made up by religious cult fanatics who never took credit for their work.
I mean. Fuck man. You’ve derailed this entire topic. I didn’t ask to hear your beliefs. I didn’t even want to hear your crazy claims.
“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
All of them, you seem to be contradicting yourself again?
Christian and church doctrine has changed over time, this has been demonstrated.
So the ten commandments never applied to christians? That sound dubious to me. As I pointed out earlier christians used OT doctrine and laws to justify slavery in the US. You’re proving the original claim that religions constantly evolve and change with every post.
You still haven’t responded to my earlier question, can you or can you not demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity? I asked this when you responded to my original request with unevidenced anecdotal claims about personal experience as this was objective evidence, when it clearly is not.
Sorry but that is simply untrue. I even said exactly what my criteria for believing a claim is, and that I treat all claims the same.
I ask again, please quote the post where you claimed I used a logical fallacy?
Perhaps you should have the integrity to quote the sentence and explain why you disagree, rather than resorting to ad hominem fallacies.
Another use of an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Well of course you can believe I will accept your bare unevidenced anecdotal claims for personal experience, but you can’t tell me I am wrong when I say i won’t? I have no idea what your hypothetical story is for sorry. I accept claims when sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated for them, so far you have offered no objective evidence. When you said you could do it easily, you proceeded to offer a subjective anecdotal opinion based on an unevidenced claim for personal experience.
that’s an appeal to authority fallacy, and in this context not really relevant to the validity of your belief. Someone may be the world’s leading expert on Harry Potter, and I might bow to their expertise on the books, or I might not if the text made me think they were wrong, however that doesn’t mean I’d believe them if they claimed wizards were real.
And I have said I don’t believe you, and I get to decide what I believe and why. I also note you are ignoring rational objections to your claim, for instance other theists who make identical claims for the validity of their beliefs.
I am using the primary dictionary definition, just like the one you linked.
expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Ipso facto your personal feelings about your own experiences are not a demonstration of objective evidence, as I said. I also pointed out that identical claims could be contradictory, as one could literally claim anything was true because they had personally experienced it.
well that is certainly untrue. the highlighted portion was clearly an example of someone who knew nothing of the subject being discussed, and the trying to take the lead to determine what is/was relevant and what was clearly not.
I even gave a great example of how one expert in one field may not be aware of his own limitations. that his methodologies and tools are irrelevant in another field. Sometimes a reminder is needed as to not waist time by making unreal demands in another field of study. Seeings how you all claim there is no god… makes you an expert at nothing. meaning if all your tools and methodologies have not yielded a result to this point, then clearly they are useless given, all of those who use the tools i suggested find God.
Short bus answer is like it or not… you all are attempting a theological discussion, forcing the use of scientific methods and logic. which is fine on a scientific topic… but again this is not a scientific topic. this is a theological topic where given the comparison i am the expert here. Ie if we are going to continue having a theological discussion you all will need to make some adjustments if you want to keep up. because right now it looks like you are hiding behind the excuse of, ‘because science’ and science is the only tool we can use…
You forgot the biggest part. This is a Atheist forum. You’re not an Atheist. The discussion I started didn’t include your beliefs of an unevidenced deity. I didn’t ask for your opinion or to come on here and jack with Sheldon or my fellow members. But you’ll do that anyway. Theist troll.
I don’t like how you preach to us about people you believe to exist and you act as though you don’t know what a non-believer / Atheist is
In fact I spent the first half of my life as an atheist. (born into buddhism, converted to korean baptist, learn to hate god and christians because i was 1/2 white, and the sunday school teachers with permission from my mom made us wait outside while sundayschool/church went on. carried that into my 20s.
Your opinions and beliefs are not factual. Quit speaking as if they were.
you do not seem to understand the term ‘fact.’
fact
(făkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law A conclusion drawn by a judge or jury from the evidence in a case: a finding of fact.
You seem to be confusing the terms “absolute demonstrable truth” with the word fact.
As i do not command God i can not demonstrate him, however i can factually tell you how to find him. this fact will be proven true when you do find him.
that is not what God wants. that is the reason for this veil of ignorance we are all born into. we must individually show the faith of a mustard seed. if you can’t afford to give God apart of yourself so small it is comparable to a mustard seed. He does not want your devotion. Not to mention i personaly do not care where you spend eternity. i am only here to help you make an informed choice. to expose you to god’s truth. what you do with it is up to you
actually i didnt. i was proving proof that the church has existed for 2000 years and that is a testament to the future. when a few of you finally got what i was saying you all felt the need to bring out the old standby atheist arguments that get trotted out when ever you all think a christian has a point you cant argue.
like answer mat 5 or prove god, or why does god hate gay people? ect ect… i did not bring these subject up, you good people did. i simply answered the questions you asked.
I feel i gave the definitive answer to the op question and defended it to the point where red herring and moved goal posts were employed by you guys to try and reclaim the subject. while i can not deny the subject matter has changed. i will say i am not the one who changed it.
It will help everyone understand who you are replying to if you either hit the reply button in that post, or better still highlight and quote the relevant text. When you highlight it a quote button appears. It takes a while to become aux fait with it, but it is pretty well set up. Or you can use the @ symbol and select the poster’s name as I have done above.
You have only offered bare anecdotal claims, if I accept that as evidence then I’d have to believe in all such claims, which is absurd. Your arguments haven’t established your core belief in an extant deity is factual or true. I am also extremely dubious that anything can be argued into existence. That said I have yet to hear any rational argument for any deity.
I feel you did not.
Care to actually evidence that claim?
Now that I will accept, over time all topics evolve and change, just like religions.
The debate forum is open to theists as well as theists, and to be fair he was responding to questions. If you want to raise questions only for atheists, there is a forum called Athest Hub where theists can’t post.
I grew up listening to crazy Christian Fanatic’s like you. You talk as if you were the first. You ALL always have to have the last word. Your argument is that you believe in a fictional deity without evidence. That I have to believe. No I don’t. I don’t have to believe a fucking word you say until you provide evidence. Nice play on the definition of FACT but I still think you’re full of shit anyway. My argument is that I don’t believe deities exist. I don’t believe in the Islamic God or any of the Hindu’s gods.
I don’t believe in your god. I don’t want to hear your claims and assertions. You can go off and believe all you want. Hell, go make a cult and get a bunch of women to join so you can sleep with all of them. Go live it up with your imaginary friends.
I however can’t believe in a fictional deity without evidence. That’s like you telling me to believe in Aliens and Bigfoot. You don’t believe in those because of lack of evidence. Why ask me to believe in your superstitions?
Your debate sucks without evidence. I stand with @Sheldon. You’re the one that can’t make good on your argument. If anything I think you’re crazy.
Yeah. I’m regretting not putting it in the hub. I just got done arguing with a fanatic a few days ago by the name of Bobby. I burned out arguing with the superstitious. It’s always the same.
Bobby: “My god is real! You should believe in him! His died on the cross!”
Me: “Please provide evidence. Otherwise I’ll continue to believe he’s fictional.”
Bobby: “Oh he’s real all right”
Me: “Didn’t I just ask you to provide evidence?”
Bobby: “The Bible is evidence! It’s a bunch of words and scripture see. Can you see god in the pages!?”
Me: “No. That’s not evidence. Religious fanatics wrote it claiming a god exists”
Bobby: “No they didn’t. God wrote it! He inspired them people!”
You can see how that’s tiring right. It’s back and forth, back and forth bullshit. It’s like two little kids arguing whether Santa Claus exists or not.
not at all, if you understand the subject you are trying to argue.
Christian and church doctrine has changed over time, this has been demonstrated.
i know, i have said this 10 times now. the church (small c) is based on mans rules and interpretation. my understanding there are more than 33k different forms of christianity. this is an example of the church doctrine changing. not in dispute ever.
I said GOD’s core rules do not change. God is not the church.
The part you seem to be missing: God’s rules for christianity are the same. so from the first church to all the different 33k different forms of christianity today, IF they are christian they all retain the core christian rules/beliefs. these never change. even if church doctrine does.
Another thing you don’t seem to understand church doctrine is not the rule of god. they are the ever changing rules of man. these can change so long as the core rules do not.
they are of the moral law, and paul tells us to use them as guidelines, but we are not bound to them. the sabbath is a big one. we do not worship on the sabbath, we worship on the first day of the jewish week (sunday) honoring father and mother is another one. paul himself teaches once married we are to leave our father’s house and cleave to our wife… this was contary to the old way of doing things. (you did whatever the matriarch told you to do under the gueiss of honoring your father. sometimes this meant you take over other meant you slept in the sables with your wife and tended the flock) command number 2 make no carved images… i dont know of a christian church without a cross. or crusifix or saints and on and on… then taking the lords name in vain… this for the jews meant they could not even write out the word god, the omitted the vowel sounds… we never followed this command. god is reference3d and mentioned so much the word has no meaning which is what the commands was intended to prevent… So no… not on the whole…
That sound dubious to me. As I pointed out earlier christians used OT doctrine and laws to justify slavery in the US.
so what… European christians in the 1500s used the ot as a reason to set the world on fire. God was speaking directly to the jews in a very specific set of circumstances. evil men have always used God’s authority to try and push their own agenda.
You’re proving the original claim that religions constantly evolve and change with every post. THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS MY POSITION!!!
That there is change so long as the core tenements are preserved!!! That it was done this way by design! that is why the jews have hundreds of rules and we were only given 2!!! with two rules we can have the roman catholic church and the southern baptist and still both be christian.
You still haven’t responded to my earlier question, can you or can you not demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?
infact, asked and answered, even provided dictionary definitions to prove my position meets your stated requirements. even suggested you were using the words incorrectly. I will further suggest if you do not think, i have provided what you are looking for then maybe you should take a moment and google the differences between a theological discussion and a scientific one.
Because i am meeting all the requirements of a theological discussion ( if you disagree with my use of theology here, then perhaps you should also google search the difference between a theological based discussion and a scientific one. look into the what why logically we are having a theological and how foolish it would be to try and make it fit a scientific outline… this should help you manage your unreal expectations/prevent you from looking any more foolish than necessary by repeating your self over and over again. coming to conclusions i have openly made. ect…
I ask again, please quote the post where you claimed I used a logical fallacy?
I’m sorry i am unable to go back and source your original post. perhaps when i become more familiar with the way this website works… normally i am familiar with all the post being numbered.
Perhaps you should have the integrity to quote the sentence and explain why you disagree, rather than resorting to ad hominem fallacies. sheldon i did quote you offending passage… do you not recognise you own misplace quipts?
you said: **
That’s just an unevidenced subjective opinion you’ve offered?
** i responded with:perhaps you should google the word opinion and the word subjective as it is not used correctly in this sentence.
because what i said was not a opinion, it was a extrapolated quote.
Another use of an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
the simple act of referencing numbers is not an ad populum fallacy. to be an ad populum fallacy the following must take place: In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as**: “If many believe so, it is so”.**
do you get the difference? you are forcing the number of church goers over the last 2000 years are based in belief only. you literally have to build a snowman fallacy to make what i said compliant with an ad populum fallacy.
As My statement was intentionally worded to show no ‘belief or faith’ was at play here, but rather the longevity of the church was based on people finding! not believing, but finding God as demonstrated by their personal testimonies… do you understand yet? your use of an ad populum fallacy is made invalid by these testimonies that solidify simple belief into verification of God.
IE the people going to these churches do not just believe by number as the fallacy suggests. they believe because they have experienced god in some way.
Well of course you can believe I will accept your bare unevidenced anecdotal claims for personal experience, but you can’t tell me I am wrong when I say i won’t? I have no idea what your hypothetical story is for sorry. I accept claims when sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated for them, so far you have offered no objective evidence. When you said you could do it easily, you proceeded to offer a subjective anecdotal opinion based on an unevidenced claim for personal experience.
I think you invented a new logical fallacy. the snow man fallacy. this is where you lie to yourself about a unique individuals statement so much that you think the old way/the old argument will work, because it is close to what other like him believe in the past, but is sufficiently different that your old argument doesn’t work, so you keep repeating the old arguments hoping you opponent gives up.And I have said I don’t believe you, and I get to decide what I believe and why. I also note you are ignoring rational objections to your claim, for instance other theists who make identical claims for the validity of their beliefs. that’s the bit you keep over looking with your snow man fallacy… you don’t have to believe me. God is offering the same thing to you. to give you your own personal proof.
You cant tell me if you had an hour with God… like morgan freedman/michael scott style you would still be where you are now.
I am using the primary dictionary definition, just like the one you linked. oh my glob… are you being intellectually dishonest or do you seriously not understand how a dictionary works?
IF THE DEFINATION IS UP THERE ITS A VALID MEANING!!! So what its not the first!! IT doesn’t have to be!! the fact the word is used my way says your usage is incorrect IF you think it is the only one!!!
Ipso facto your personal feelings about your own experiences are not a demonstration of objective evidence, as I said. I also pointed out that identical claims could be contradictory, as one could literally claim anything was true because they had personally experienced it.
good lord… free from emotion, feelings, anything not observed. whether a objective story contradicts or not is not apart of the defination. it is an honest straight forward what you saw witness or observed telling period. which validates everything i said.
the fact you are struggling with alternative meaning to this word means you out of your depth of field here. i know you do not like being forced to accept something you thought you had lock up, but again. in this instance in a theological discussion like it or not i provided an objective evidence suitable for for the intended discussion
Drich is a welcome guest and member of this forum, just like you are.
@MrDawn both you and Drich share equal status, and each decide when and how you depart, on your terms. No one will be run out of town. Anyone who makes such an attempt may find themselves being the ones who depart.
@Drich Please understand as an Admin I do not tolerate threats and bullying. Your conduct so far has been praiseworthy, even though you may not share the same opinion as others.
We are here for an exchange of ideas and positions, you are very welcome. No one bullies or threatens in here, not on my watch.
1 Like
Attack the post, not the person.
1 Like