Aspects of Christian belief that strike me as highly questionable - Part 1.

[bhsmte]

All men are left to GOD’s final judgement. We don’t sit over GOD and judge any man unto condemnation


Ever

Opinion.

 

[miknik5]

Opinion.

If you say so sir

 

[devolved]

I don't recall the correct terminology, but I understand that the NT subsumes the OT rendering some of the rules and regulations defunct. For example, it is no longer necessary to stone adulterers and one may even eat shellfish. Would someone identify where that arrangement is detailed in the NT. Thank you.

I'm not quite sure what you would find that aspect questionable. Most of what you find in Judeo-Christian narrative in respect to "rules and regulations" would be contextualized in a setting that these rules apply to.

You have to think about as to why these rules and regulations are there in the first place. Any kind of a religious thought is a progression of certain continuum of human experience. The version of Christianity that people practice today is different than what they practiced 200 years ago, and it's substantially different from the original, because Christianity is a not a narrative in a book, but rather a contextual application of that narrative.

In Biblical narrative, the punishment typically fits the crime. For example, in today's American society, the punishment for treason is death, or in a very least a life prison sentence. Why? It seems rather bizarre to me personally. The reasoning here is that treason is a transgression against the entire nation of people that potentially puts them at risk. Hence it's our way of collectively "stoning people" for going against our "tribe".

In the past, the tribes generally comprised of tightly-knit families, so the dynamic of adultery and pin families against families in a tribe, which would eventually result in breakdown of that tribal order. Therefore you have certain severity of dealing with issues which don't have the same effect as we progress in human history.

So, I'm not quite sure why you would find that aspect questionable?

 

[John 1720]

I try not to be selfish, but I really don't want to wade through scores of threads to find a focused discussion on the matters that currently interest me. I'm sure that each of the points I may raise have likely been raised multiple times before. That being the case feel free to point me to any thread or post where that matter is dealt with clearly and succinctly rather than taking the time to explain things, yet again, to a non-believer.

Background declaration: my profile says agnostic, because that is what I am, but in regard to the Christian God I am atheist.

I have several quibbles with what I understand to be the generic Christian position, but wish to restrict discussion to one per thread. I'll hope to reach a conclusion or an irreconcilable impasse on one, before starting another.

So, I'll open with one where I think you will actually stand a reasonable chance of educating and convincing me.

I don't recall the correct terminology, but I understand that the NT subsumes the OT rendering some of the rules and regulations defunct. For example, it is no longer necessary to stone adulterers and one may even eat shellfish. Would someone identify where that arrangement is detailed in the NT. Thank you.

I answered this in another thread. The biggest change to usher in the age of Mercy was Pentecost. The Holy Spirit is the law written into our heart and is our guide to follow in the Ways of Christ Jesus. Rather than rewrite the Scriptural exegesis out again I'll simply post the link as the question has much in common with the morality question as well.
Morality and Matthew 5

 

[Ophiolite]

A further thank you to everyone who has responded to my OP, or subsequent posts. After reviewing the answers I find myself more confused than I was when I started. I am not seeing a coherent answer from the responders. The differences seem to go beyond mere nuances, or emphasis. This means that either a proportion of you are wrong (possibly 100%, ) or I'm even dumber than Dunning-Kruger would have you believe. I suspect these differences can be resolved in an intelligible fashion, but I doubt anyone would take the time to do so. So, again, thank you all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not quite sure what you would find that aspect questionable. Most of what you find in Judeo-Christian narrative in respect to "rules and regulations" would be contextualized in a setting that these rules apply to.

You have to think about as to why these rules and regulations are there in the first place. Any kind of a religious thought is a progression of certain continuum of human experience. The version of Christianity that people practice today is different than what they practiced 200 years ago, and it's substantially different from the original, because Christianity is a not a narrative in a book, but rather a contextual application of that narrative.

In Biblical narrative, the punishment typically fits the crime. For example, in today's American society, the punishment for treason is death, or in a very least a life prison sentence. Why? It seems rather bizarre to me personally. The reasoning here is that treason is a transgression against the entire nation of people that potentially puts them at risk. Hence it's our way of collectively "stoning people" for going against our "tribe".

In the past, the tribes generally comprised of tightly-knit families, so the dynamic of adultery and pin families against families in a tribe, which would eventually result in breakdown of that tribal order. Therefore you have certain severity of dealing with issues which don't have the same effect as we progress in human history.

So, I'm not quite sure why you would find that aspect questionable?

Sounds like christianity, or indeed any religion, is completely irrelevant for the process of social organization, then.

 

[John 1720]

A further thank you to everyone who has responded to my OP, or subsequent posts. After reviewing the answers I find myself more confused than I was when I started. I am not seeing a coherent answer from the responders. The differences seem to go beyond mere nuances, or emphasis. This means that either a proportion of you are wrong (possibly 100%, ) or I'm even dumber than Dunning-Kruger would have you believe. I suspect these differences can be resolved in an intelligible fashion, but I doubt anyone would take the time to do so. So, again, thank you all.

Specifically what answers are incoherent and not cogent to the question you've asked of us. I'm willing to work through it with you, verse by verse if you truly desire to know the answer, but that is up to you.
May the Lord Bless, Pat

 

[Ophiolite]

Specifically what answers are incoherent and not cogent to the question you've asked of us. I'm willing to work through it with you, verse by verse if you truly desire to know the answer, but that is up to you.
May the Lord Bless, Pat

John, thank you for your interest. I need to revisit all the posts in order to provide a proper reply. In the meantime here a couple of observations.

The individual answers are all, by and large, coherent. A couple of them are clear, concise and comprehensive - a good suite of characteristics that go a long way to making an explantion convincing. Unfortunately, when considered in total, there are many contradictions between the responses from the different members. If I may use an apt metaphor, they don't all seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. I suspect those differences are irreconcilable, because - as I noted - some of them are probably wrong. Resolving those contradictions is what I would be interested to see.

As I said, I shall revisit the posts and try to present a summary of what I consider to be the most significant contradictions for you to consider. I thank you again for your willingness to address this.

 

[John 1720]

John, thank you for your interest. I need to revisit all the posts in order to provide a proper reply. In the meantime here a couple of observations.

The individual answers are all, by and large, coherent. A couple of them are clear, concise and comprehensive - a good suite of characteristics that go a long way to making an explantion convincing. Unfortunately, when considered in total, there are many contradictions between the responses from the different members. If I may use an apt metaphor, they don't all seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet. I suspect those differences are irreconcilable, because - as I noted - some of them are probably wrong. Resolving those contradictions is what I would be interested to see.

As I said, I shall revisit the posts and try to present a summary of what I consider to be the most significant contradictions for you to consider. I thank you again for your willingness to address this.

Hi Ophiolite, I'm glad to exegete the Scriptures and attempt to clarify your questions. It's also not very surprising to me that some interpretations on the letter of the law and the spirit may have variance. The Jerusalem council had to clear up issues with Jewish Law and the issue of Grace as well. In addition I noticed the question you ask frame some assumptions that need to be clarified as well. That is likely to generate variances in response as well.

• I don't recall the correct terminology, but I understand that the NT subsumes the OT rendering some of the rules and regulations defunct. For example, it is no longer necessary to stone adulterers and one may even eat shellfish. Would someone identify where that arrangement is detailed in the NT. Thank you.

While the above understanding is not quite analytically correct I believe I knew, and others likely assumed, what you meant. I can only speak for myself here but I responded to your question as pertaining to the Law vs the Spirit - OT vs. post Pentecost revelation. I did so also by linking it to a morality thread that I believed was asking the same thing in a different form and frame. So no doubt it had a different tailoring aspect to it. No doubt I was perhaps too quick and probably should have first clarified the question with you before responding so if I am off a bit I do sincerely apologize.
Regards, Patrick

 

[miknik5]

In short yes. The reasons for the contradicting statements has to do with the difference in the understanding and discernment between the spiritual man and the natural man

 

[miknik5]

Sounds like christianity, or indeed any religion, is completely irrelevant for the process of social organization, then.

That wasn’t it’s purpose

 

[bhsmte]

In short yes. The reasons for the contradicting statements has to do with the difference in the understanding and discernment between the spiritual man and the natural man

Don't think so. The contradictions are in writing and are clear contradictions, regardless of interpretation.

 

[miknik5]

Don't think so. The contradictions are in writing and are clear contradictions, regardless of interpretation.

According to 1 Corinthians 2, God’s SPIRIT doesn’t agree with you

 

[miknik5]

You’re chasing after “little things” will not cancel out the truth that CHRIST came into the world in the flesh for one purpose.

And that there will be a division between the two

 

[HitchSlap]

In short yes. The reasons for the contradicting statements has to do with the difference in the understanding and discernment between the spiritual man and the natural man

Correct, non-theists are able to evaluate statements and base the most likely answer on it's merits, whereas a theist is forced to accept the "spiritual" answer in lock-step.

 

[HitchSlap]

You’re chasing after “little things” will not cancel out the truth that CHRIST came into the world in the flesh for one purpose.

And that there will be a division between the two

This is what David Koresh thought.

 

[miknik5]

Correct, non-theists are able to evaluate statements and base the most likely answer on it's merits, whereas a theist is forced to accept the "spiritual" answer in lock-step.

Forced to?

Do you forget who it is who opens the spiritual eyes and ears to begin with

 

[miknik5]

This is what David Koresh thought.

Dont put evil for good

 

[miknik5]

Correct, non-theists are able to evaluate statements and base the most likely answer on it's merits, whereas a theist is forced to accept the "spiritual" answer in lock-step.

But you are right about one thing
Once GOD opens the spiritual eyes and ears of a man there really is no going backwards to things

 

[Steve Petersen]

Forced to?

Do you forget who it is who opens the spiritual eyes and ears to begin with

So, why does God condemn people to hell even though He didn't open their 'spiritual eyes and ears?'