Christianity Morality and OT laws

[Paradoxum]

What do you make of this?

Can't Have It Both Ways - YouTube

 

[Chesterton]

If I called you a [bless and do not curse] for posting that, would that be right or wrong? I think it would be wrong, do you agree?

 

[Steeno7]

What do you make of this?

More of the nonsense that comes from thinking Christianity is morality, it isn't.

 

[Paradoxum]

If I called you a [bless and do not curse] for posting that, would that be right or wrong? I think it would be wrong, do you agree?

Wrong I suppose.

If you want to get into an argument about foundations of morality with atheism, that's a pretty big topic to get into.

More of the nonsense that comes from thinking Christianity is morality, it isn't.

I agree Christianity isn't moral. At least not literalist Christianity.

 

[Steeno7]

I agree Christianity isn't moral. At least not literalist Christianity.

I didn't say it isn't moral. I said it isn't morality.

 

[Chesterton]

Wrong I suppose.

If you want to get into an argument about foundations of morality with atheism, that's a pretty big topic to get into.

No I just thought we might agree that it would be objectively wrong. Some things are, no matter where or when. I think attempts to conflate OT Hebrew moral codes with objective morality is an error, even though my Christian faith comes from those people.

 

[Paradoxum]

I didn't say it isn't moral. I said it isn't morality.

Yeah, I thought you meant that, but I hoped you would explain what you meant, because I have no idea what you mean. What point are you trying to make?

No I just thought we might agree that it would be objectively wrong. Some things are, no matter where or when. I think attempts to conflate OT Hebrew moral codes with objective morality is an error, even though my Christian faith comes from those people.

It seems we agree then.

 

[Joshua260]

I think the video misrepresented what we mean by being under a new covenant.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

I think it's interesting to see how Jesus reacted when challenged to condemn the adulterous woman to death. Notice in verse 7 that Jesus effectively acknowledges the Mosaic law concerning adultery. He did NOT say that the Mosaic law wasn't valid anymore, but he rather moved on to point out that if we all proceeded to deal out judgement according to the Mosaic law, there would be no one left alive. "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). You don't want justice, my friend, but grace.

John 8:
3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4. They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think the video misrepresented what we mean by being under a new covenant.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

I think it's interesting to see how Jesus reacted when challenged to condemn the adulterous woman to death. Notice in verse 7 that Jesus effectively acknowledges the Mosaic law concerning adultery. He did NOT say that the Mosaic law wasn't valid anymore, but he rather moved on to point out that if we all proceeded to deal out judgement according to the Mosaic law, there would be no one left alive. "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). You don't want justice, my friend, but grace.

So you think it's moral to kill a bunch of people, you just don't do it because it's impractical? Just because it means everyone would die, and for some reason everyone not dying is more important?

Is that your explanation? If someone works on the Sabbath then it would be morally fine to kill them?

John 8:
3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4. They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

One of the nicer bits of the Bible, though I've heard it might have been added later on.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Meh.

Different societies go by different rules in different periods of time. As babies we eat different things than when we are adults. We wear different kinds of clothes, and we require different levels of supervision.

 

[Steeno7]

Yeah, I thought you meant that, but I hoped you would explain what you meant, because I have no idea what you mean. What point are you trying to make?

Many believe that Christianity is a religion that imposes a particular morality with specific ethical behavior, and that a Christian is one who lives by certain rules and regulations imposed upon him. That behavioral conformity to those moral codes of conduct is what the Christian strives to perform in order to please and/or appease God. That is not Christianity, it is a tragic misrepresentation of Christianity.

 

[dayhiker]

I think basically the OT and the NT have the same morality. Love God and love people. Many of the rules in the OT aren't about morality but are purity laws that all nations had back then to identify which tribe of people they belong to. Today we have a piece of paper for our purity law that tells which country we are a citizen of. Since I'm a gentile the Israeli purity laws don't apply to me as Id be a trader to my own nation if I obeyed Israeli purity laws. There is a lot said in the NT about Gentiles not having to obey Jewish purity laws to be right with God.

 

[Paradoxum]

Meh.

Different societies go by different rules in different periods of time. As babies we eat different things than when we are adults. We wear different kinds of clothes, and we require different levels of supervision.

I don't agree that stoning people to death for picking up sticks was ever moral.

I do agree that circumstances can change what is right though, because principles may apply differently in different circumstances.

Many believe that Christianity is a religion that imposes a particular morality with specific ethical behavior, and that a Christian is one who lives by certain rules and regulations imposed upon him. That behavioral conformity to those moral codes of conduct is what the Christian strives to perform in order to please and/or appease God. That is not Christianity, it is a tragic misrepresentation of Christianity.

Perhaps we have no disagreement then.

I think basically the OT and the NT have the same morality. Love God and love people. Many of the rules in the OT aren't about morality but are purity laws that all nations had back then to identify which tribe of people they belong to. Today we have a piece of paper for our purity law that tells which country we are a citizen of. Since I'm a gentile the Israeli purity laws don't apply to me as Id be a trader to my own nation if I obeyed Israeli purity laws. There is a lot said in the NT about Gentiles not having to obey Jewish purity laws to be right with God.

That doesn't really solve the problem. If morals are the same now and then, that means murder is murder now and then. It is murder to kill someone for picking up sticks on a particular day of the week.

 

[keith99]

I think the video misrepresented what we mean by being under a new covenant.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

I think it's interesting to see how Jesus reacted when challenged to condemn the adulterous woman to death. Notice in verse 7 that Jesus effectively acknowledges the Mosaic law concerning adultery. He did NOT say that the Mosaic law wasn't valid anymore, but he rather moved on to point out that if we all proceeded to deal out judgement according to the Mosaic law, there would be no one left alive. "There is none righteous, no, not one" (Romans 3:10). You don't want justice, my friend, but grace.

John 8:
3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4. They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Then a large boulder came bouncing down the hill and landed on the woman killing her instantly. Jesus turned and cried out 'Mother, please'.

This little addition is just as much a part of the original as the verses above. And much funnier.

 

[super animator]

Can you post a summary of it for the rest of us to read? thx

 

[Joshua260]

So you think it's moral to kill a bunch of people, you just don't do it because it's impractical? Just because it means everyone would die, and for some reason everyone not dying is more important?

Is that your explanation? If someone works on the Sabbath then it would be morally fine to kill them?

You're confusing moral obligations with degrees of punishment. "Kill" is a word that can be used to mean "to take away life" within OR without the law. When someone takes a life unlawfully, that is a moral wrong; however, when someone takes a life within the law, it is often called "capital PUNISHMENT".

I don't think God's law (and associated punishments) have been nullified at all by the NT ("Think not that I am come to destroy the law"). Jesus took the punishments that we deserve ("but to fulfil").

One of the nicer bits of the Bible, though I've heard it might have been added later on.

Yes, I'm aware that the story of the adulterous woman is not found in some of our oldest copies of the NT. It has been estimated that only about 2% of the new testament has changed from the original. Some have claimed that there are thousands of variances, but they are counting misspellings, changes from "he" to "Jesus", and so forth. Nothing changed has altered any real doctrine of the faith. So, does the fact that we don't find the story in our earliest copies prove that it didn't happen? Nope. A scribe, who was aware of the story, might have added it in later to give a more complete history of Jesus' life. In any case, the message of the story: that "There is none righteous, no, not one" is well taught elsewhere in scripture.

 

[Paradoxum]

You're confusing moral obligations with degrees of punishment. "Kill" is a word that can be used to mean "to take away life" within OR without the law. When someone takes a life unlawfully, that is a moral wrong; however, when someone takes a life within the law, it is often called "capital PUNISHMENT".

Whether it is wrong or not has nothing to do with the law. If the law allowed you to kill Jews that wouldn't make it okay. The capital punishment of Jews (for being Jewish) is still murder, and absolutely evil.

Anyway, we don't have capital punishment in the UK, and I don't accept capital punishment as moral when it's unnecessary.

I don't think God's law (and associated punishments) have been nullified at all by the NT ("Think not that I am come to destroy the law"). Jesus took the punishments that we deserve ("but to fulfil").

So you think its okay to kill a bunch of people based on the crazy punishments in the Bible? Would you be morally justified in stoning bad children and people who work on Sabbath?

I don't understand if you're saying all this mass killing stuff is wrong or not.

Yes, I'm aware that the story of the adulterous woman is not found in some of our oldest copies of the NT. It has been estimated that only about 2% of the new testament has changed from the original. Some have claimed that there are thousands of variances, but they are counting misspellings, changes from "he" to "Jesus", and so forth. Nothing changed has altered any real doctrine of the faith. So, does the fact that we don't find the story in our earliest copies prove that it didn't happen? Nope. A scribe, who was aware of the story, might have added it in later to give a more complete history of Jesus' life. In any case, the message of the story: that "There is none righteous, no, not one" is well taught elsewhere in scripture.

I personally don't mind. I like the story, and I can learn from it regardless of whether it happened or not.

 

[Joshua260]

Whether it is wrong or not has nothing to do with the law. If the law allowed you to kill Jews that wouldn't make it okay. The capital punishment of Jews (for being Jewish) is still murder, and absolutely evil.

Anyway, we don't have capital punishment in the UK, and I don't accept capital punishment as moral when it's unnecessary.



So you think its okay to kill a bunch of people based on the crazy punishments in the Bible? Would you be morally justified in stoning bad children and people who work on Sabbath?

I don't understand if you're saying all this mass killing stuff is wrong or not.

What I'm saying is that you are confusing moral obligations with degrees of punishment. Moral obligations are things that you should do or not do. When God said that one should die for committing a sin, that was an extreme punishment for breaking his law. The point of these extreme punishments is because God was making the point that these particular "crimes" were very serious in God's eyes. So, the point of dispute here is that you don't think that being disrespectful to God is anything serious, while again God considers disrespect towards him to be very serious indeed. This view is summed up in 1 Cor 10:11" Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

So I'm just wondering...since you said "If the law allowed you to kill Jews that wouldn't make it okay. The capital punishment of Jews (for being Jewish) is still murder, and absolutely evil" does that mean that you are against abortion on demand?

 

[Paradoxum]

What I'm saying is that you are confusing moral obligations with degrees of punishment. Moral obligations are things that you should do or not do. When God said that one should die for committing a sin, that was an extreme punishment for breaking his law. The point of these extreme punishments is because God was making the point that these particular "crimes" were very serious in God's eyes. So, the point of dispute here is that you don't think that being disrespectful to God is anything serious, while again God considers disrespect towards him to be very serious indeed. This view is summed up in 1 Cor 10:11" Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come."

There's no difference. If it's okay to punish someone by killing someone, that means it's morally okay to kill someone for the crazy laws.

It is irrelevant what God thinks. What matters is what is moral.

I don't think God made these rules because these laws are evil. A good God wouldn't make such laws... it would make him no different from a serial killer. You say it is an extreme punishment... yes, extremely disgustingly evil, so much so that the author of the rule should be considered close to Satan.

So my point would be that these rules are so massively hideous that they can't be from a good God.

But no, I don't consider disrespect to God to be bad. Saying I deserve to die for being disrespectful is no different than being killed for disobeying a Mafia boss or dictator. I have no respect for an evil God.

I've asked you twice if you support the mass murder of rules in the Bible, and you haven't denied it. This is why I'm against religion. I assume you are generally a nice person, but you seem to support the evil of widespread murder. Your beliefs have corrupted you, and this makes me sad and sickened.

The point of dispute is that I say killing someone for picking up sticks is evil to the core. You appear to defending such arbitrary killing.

Again... is it moral to kill someone for working on a particular day of the week? Do you really believe that is okay?

So I'm just wondering...since you said "If the law allowed you to kill Jews that wouldn't make it okay. The capital punishment of Jews (for being Jewish) is still murder, and absolutely evil" does that mean that you are against abortion on demand?

These things have nothing to do with each other. I'm okay with abortion at any time for any reason.

 

[Joshua260]

There's no difference. If it's okay to punish someone by killing someone, that means it's morally okay to kill someone for the crazy laws.

It is irrelevant what God thinks. What matters is what is moral.

I don't think God made these rules because these laws are evil. A good God wouldn't make such laws... it would make him no different from a serial killer. You say it is an extreme punishment... yes, extremely disgustingly evil, so much so that the author of the rule should be considered close to Satan.

So my point would be that these rules are so massively hideous that they can't be from a good God.

But no, I don't consider disrespect to God to be bad. Saying I deserve to die for being disrespectful is no different than being killed for disobeying a Mafia boss or dictator. I have no respect for an evil God.

I've asked you twice if you support the mass murder of rules in the Bible, and you haven't denied it. This is why I'm against religion. I assume you are generally a nice person, but you seem to support the evil of widespread murder. Your beliefs have corrupted you, and this makes me sad and sickened.

The point of dispute is that I say killing someone for picking up sticks is evil to the core. You appear to defending such arbitrary killing.

Again... is it moral to kill someone for working on a particular day of the week? Do you really believe that is okay?

Your understanding of God is seriously flawed.

The reason I have not answered your question is because you apparently can't tell the difference between the definition of "kill" and "murder". You use flawed logic to accuse God of murder and then ask me to defend that. I reject the premise of your question, so I will continue to ignore it.

So, you should really learn what the difference is between "kill" and "murder". So far, we've talked about killing Jews and unborn babies. But we can also talk about killing chickens, killing child rapists, killing flies, killing mass murderers, etc. Killing is done lawfully for lots of reasons. Many people kill chickens, cows, and other animals for food or population control. Also, people may kill another person in self defense or during war. Some people kill others on accident. So what we've got to do first is define what is the morally wrong type of the word "kill". And the morally wrong type of "kill" is "murder". Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." I think it's interesting that you understand that what is acceptable by the law is not always what is morally right. I would agree with that.

These things have nothing to do with each other. I'm okay with abortion at any time for any reason.

This comment is in reference to my suggestion that there is a similarity between the holocaust and "abortion on demand". Did you know that Hitler was an evolutionist?

Here's a quote from a website concerning the holocaust:
"Due to his Nazi ideology, which was founded in fascism and anti-Semitism, Hitler saw the Jews as less than human. He believed them to be an internal enemy of Germany and a racial issue that needed to be resolved in order to create his Master Race. This was part of the Nazi belief that Aryans were the superior race and that they should perform a cleansing based on race, religion, sex, gender, and other elements to get rid of those who were an impediment to the Nazi goals in society."

Did you see the phrase "less than human"? This is what many people say when asked about why they aborted a baby. They say that "it wasn't a person". Usually their justification for that statement is that the baby hasn't been born yet. In one popular type of abortion, the baby is totally grown and the baby is brought completely out of the womb, except for the head, and the surgeon takes scissors into the back of the neck and scrambles the brains until the baby dies. Also, it's strange that they consider a baby who is born at nine months is a person, and a baby who is born 2 months early is also a person. But, if the baby doesn't get born and it's 7 months along, it's NOT a real person. So the similarity again is how they view the victim. Hitler considered the Jews "less than a person", so doesn't it sound awful now to say that an unborn baby is "less than a person"?