First, I would like to apologize to any and all that are offended by this topic of discussion. I beleive I was the first to point out how dangerous this line of discussion is. But where people decided to discuss it anyway, I saw no reason not to add what knowledge I have on the subject. The discussion has been and remains to be a civil discourse. Suprisingly it has not degenerated into a flame war, and as long as the discussion remains civil and the other participants wish to continue the discussion, I see no reason not to do so.
Interesting topic. Mammals raised by mammals discussing the interpretive skills, beliefs, and insights of mammals.
A rather simple equation from a very old college class: "Teachings from ones youth" + "experiences from ones adolescence" = "beliefs in ones adulthood".
i believe in the greek gods... i love playing their games... chrono trigger, kid icarus, king neptunes adventure (alright, alright, so this one was roman; dont shoot me)
I think that the Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. The main difference comes from recognition of Christ as the Savior.
How would you see far easter religions falling into the monotheistic view? Such as Hinduism with hundreds of gods?
Christians, Jews and Muslims do all worship the same God because each religion shares the Old Testament. It is because they share those same teachings, the major overlying theme of which is 'no other God before me', that the 3 religions will never have peace with one another. Christians and Muslims divide themselves from Judaism through new revelations, much the same way that Mormonism is divided from Christianity through it's new revelations.
Polytheism cannot be reconciled into a monotheistic view, the very nature of the 'one God' belief structure precludes it. It was devised with that in mind, in order to help preserve the cultural identity of the early Hebrews, and protect them from assimilation. It is just unfortunate that to achieve that separatism the Abrahamic religions are also constructed to be extremely intolerant of any other form of belief.
This divisive nature of the Old Testament is precisely why new revelation, which is essentially a new form of worship or even any differing interpretation of existing revelation, yields seperatist movements. Which is why there are some 2000+ sects of Christianity, the difference between teaching the Baptism or not is the difference between true faith and Satanism. God only allows for one correct path, one form of worship, which is why any other path or form of worship is treated as the false path or the worship of a false God.
There are some Christian sects that preach tolerance of other belief structures, however they are still renounced by the other sects for this deviation in teachings.
Technically, Jesus asks you to give him EVERYTHING, but I don't know that it's calling for direct financial outlay. He's just saying that you owe him your whole life, and it's really all on loan from God in the first place.
The Old Testament dictates 10%, which most Christians do adhere to, especially Catholics.
I'm not familiar with that many sects of Christianity, but if there are as many as you say, you can't possibly be familiar enough with all of them to know what they would or wouldn't renounce.
I agree with your first paragraph, but that's about it. The polytheism question was directed to EarlyWorm. I was curious how he would reconcile that with his idea of them all being "the same, but different'
There is a difference between being intolerant and believing in one true path. Intolerance suggests persecution, hate, and destruction. There ARE intolerant people, on ALL sides of the issue of religion. There are intolerant atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others. Just like there are racist individuals from ALL races. No group gets a free pass from having to avoid the stigma.
Believing that there is only one path to God, though, doesn't mean I'm intolerant of others religions. I just try to live my life in a way that lets other people see God in my life, in my kindness or compassion. I'm not out in the world killing people and accosting unbelievers, as you seem to suggest any Abrahamic religion would support. You might want to reread the teachings of Jesus and rethink how he actually instructs us to live our lives before you jump to conclusions about people. Admittedly, people make mistakes and don't live like they should. But it's not the fault of their religion. It's their own failing that is to blame.
Intolerance means not granting equal freedom of expression, in this case it means not accepting seperatist beliefs. The Christian sects are divided by their interpretations of scripture, which alters their belief structure. If they were unified in all aspects of their belief they would all be one church, there would be no need for a separate structure. Separation means that they believe that their way or their interpretation is the correct way, conversely this means that the other ways are incorrect. Some churches leave it at just that, others do in fact believe that the other ways are hellbound. Calvanists, Adventists, and Baptists for example. Mormons even refer to the Christian churches as part of the 'Great Whore'.
Not all Abrahamic sects abide the scripture that outlines the best recourse for dealing with heretics and heathans is through death. Christians haven't really preached those sections en masse since the 17th century. Though you can see the passages in use in modern Islamic Fundamentalism.
It's not a mistake if their religious scripture is open to that specific interpretation. Jesus may have preached peace, but there are passages that alot for using OT Law (which I still plan to address), that allowed for things like the inquisition, and behavior of Spanish Conquistadors to be perfectly in line with scripture.
That you do not accept those interpretations, and that you suggest it is not what God/Jesus intended, means that you are exhibiting the exact intolerance I am referring to.
If intolerance is "not granting equal freedom of expression", in what way is that occuring? It seems to me that everyone is free to express their beliefs. I'll grant that in many countries, this may not be true.
You're not taking the meaning quite correctly.
By dismissing my interpretations as out of context or agenda driven you are not 'granting me equal freedom of expression'. A clear example for you might be: Baptists being intolerant of the claim that baptism is not prerequisite to salvation, as that claim is contrary to their belief structure. If they didn't prohibit that claim, then Baptism would be meaningless, and they would forfeit one of the principle foundations of that sect.
I think you are confusing intolerance with bigotry, which we have plenty of in this country.
Anything further we discuss about the nature of the Law will likely challenge the foundation of your beliefs. If you are going to simply reject my arguments as misquotation and agenda driven atheism, rather than an argument based simply on the contents of the scripture as written, then there is no need to continue the discussion. I am not making an attempt at deconversion, I simply enjoy discussing theology. However, that enjoyment ceases when my arguments are not respected. By that I don't mean I expect you to agree, but I do expect that if you reject a premise that you at least provide some form of counter example or have me support it further, which is no less than the level of respect I have thusfar shown you. If you believe something I have stated is misquoted or out of context I will happily provide citation and further explanation, all you need do is ask.
Respond to the following only if you agree to those terms.
If people throughout history have found negative interpretations and contexts in the bible, then those contexts and interpretations exist in the bible. Whether or not they are accepted as true or correct is irrelevant, because they are there. That they are there means they are subject to use, or abuse as you would put it. The entire Christian religion used those (heretic) contexts as late the 16th-17th century, whether they were correct or true Christians or not is again irrelevant.
Christians are still citing Lev to persecute homosexuality, so either the Law is not as dead as you claim, or they as well are 'abusing' the scripture.
THose negative contexts and interpretations don't exist "in the Bible" just because somebody interprets them that way. All kinds of misguided people pervert the scripture to meet their ends.
I think that Christians who cite Leviticus for ANYTHING other than a lesson on how the Hebrew people were different, are misguided, and THEY ARE abusing the scripture to spread hate. It is unfortunate, but it happens. It doesn't make them not Christians, it just makes them poorly educated Christians who, unfortunately can do more harm than good.
The only Law that matters is the 10 Commandments and that Jesus died so that we can be saved if we surrender to Him, and He was resurrected to sit at the Right Hand of God. It's pretty definitive.
I will admit that there is a lot of minutia in the Bible, with which it is easy to become distracted and miss the big picture. But every piece of history in there, and every allegory has a purpose if you read it in the company of the Holy Spirit.
Also, I don't disagree that MANY of the Christian denominations have separated for unecessary reasons, and choose to argue on points that don't matter in the greater scene. It's sad, and it hurts people, and it ruins many opportunities to have greater unity. It ruins many opportunities to appeal to those in need of God, as well. Instead of seeing God's love, they see your arguments of division and intolerance (which may appear valid from your perspective, I can't see through your eyes, so I can't assume to know what you feel).
Again, all that matters is surrendering your life to Christ and accepting Him as your Savior. He knows that you are not capable of satisfying the Law, though, and the only unforgivable sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit and the Salvation that it leads to.
Revelations talks about the way that the Church has become. With people who are overly proud and lack humility in the eyes of God. It's all a sign of what's to come, eventually.
But please, don't presume to put words in my mouth based on what you say other Christians might believe. I know what I believe. And I know that God confirms my belief daily. He does the same for my wife. It's a tough spiritual war to win, when we can't present a unified front, but groups making claims that aren't supported by the teachings of Jesus are misguided, plain and simple. You're welcome to dislike the establisment. Hell, I can't stand "megachurches" and "prosperity gospel" televangelists like Creflo Dollar. I think most of those people have been deceived, and will pay the price if they don't see the error in their ways. But just because some thing you read about somewhere is preaching hate, don't think for a second that it reflects the true Christian theology or belief.
Technically, Jesus asks you to give him EVERYTHING, but I don't know that it's calling for direct financial outlay. He's just saying that you owe him your whole life, and it's really all on loan from God in the first place.
The Old Testament dictates 10%, which most Christians do adhere to, especially Catholics.
What the Old Testament say literally is to give 10% of the harvest and livestock to the poor, and not glean the fields so that they can get what's left.
But again, that's what the Jews were supposed to do. The New Testament instructs to give as you are led with a cheerful heart.
Also, back on the topic about the Law. Read Galations. It has some important reading material about being freed by faith in Jesus Christ.
Tithing Lev 27:30 is the direct commandment, which was established in Num 18:20 as a perpetual covenant. The tithe belongs to God, and is to be paid to the priests at the temple. Harvest and Livestock were the commerce of these people, that is what represented their income. The tithe isn't limited to simply livestock, there are other examples establishing that it is 10% of anything you gain, including plunder from other cities. But those quotes seem redundant. 1 Cor 9:13-14 St. Paul explains that it is the right of those of preaching the gospel to collect their living from it, as granted by Mosaic Law, by which he can only mean through tithes.
I am happy to disect the books of St. Paul and conclude for you that the Law is still valid, and further establish that you cannot divorce the 10 commandments from the other statutes, laws and commandments. It will be a very long and drawnout process, and my willingness to do so will depend entirely on how you account for the following:
Does Lev 18:20 establish that a man lieing with another man as he would a woman is an abomination? And does Lev 20:13 Decree that that offense is punishable by death, and that the actors blood is on their own heads? If you find ambiguity to these passages, or that somehow they mean anything other than what is clearly presented, then our discussion has reached it's conclusion. Not to be critical, but I can only present to you that which is actually recorded in scripture, and if those passages are in your opinion subject to interpretation then we have a hit a wall I cannot hope to transcend.
It's actually 2 Cor chapter 9. Paul states that you need to give to God as you are led with a cheerful heart, and not out of obligation.
Lev 27:30 says "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's and it is holy unto the Lord". It doesn't say to give it to the priests, at least not in that passage. It says that the tithe is God's.
Jesus tells us that our entire lives belong to God.
1 Cor 9:13-14 states "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel"
BUT you take this out of context by ignoring the previous two verses:
1 Cor 9:11-12 states "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ"
Paul is actually pointing out that he does not want to accept any payment from the Corinthians because he feels like it interferes with his ability to spread the gospel.
Lev 18:20 says "Moreover thow shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile her thyself".
I'm not sure why you're bringing that up, since it hasn't been a point of debate.
Lev 20:13 says "if a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death, their blood shall be upon them".
It doesn't say to kill them yourself. Do I agree that what is stated there is an abomination? Well again, there is an argument of context. God is delivering commandments that serve two purposes: set His people apart from the rest of the world, and keep His people healthy and prolific. Supporting homosexuality serves neither of those goals, at that time in history. It's only very recently that modern conveniences allow homosexual men to even practice safe sex without the high likelihood of some sort of disease (not just STDs but salmonella and other bacterial infections). Clearly, no good comes from that practice in the ancient world. I don't presume to know what goes on in the heart or mind of a modern homosexual. My dad was an endocrynoligist, so he had some interesting stories about transexed people. Just like it's possible for someone to be a physical hermaphrodite, I'm sure it's possible for someone to have certain parts of their brain transsexed as well. But that issue is neither here nor there. That commandment, if it applied, doesn't command me to kill gay people as you seem to suggest. Any death associated with it is between them and God.
Regardless, you evidently have not read Galations as I suggested.
If you don't care to read Galations on the issues of law, try reading Matthew.
Mat 22:35-40: Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. THis is the first and great commandment. And the second is like uno it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Jesus clears it up right there.
Love God completely. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Satisfying the law is not entirely within our grasp, though, as you would know if you read Galations.
You are justified through FAITH, not through the law. There are no self-made men.
Faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, frees you from the death that comes from breaking the law (any law, so the homosexuals you were worried about can be saved as well).
Just as a point of curiosity. You seem extraordinarily attached to this discussion for claiming to have no belief in God. What motivates you to pursue this topic at all if you have so little invested in the matter?
I've been reading 8ngel, and you're holding the torch pretty good... a couple minor slipups
Anyway, anyone still reading and taking the old testament text verbatim as God's law still to be upheld in the "Christian Era" in its entirety hasn't paid much attention to New Testament text; time and again Jesus (the Jew) shot down Jewish laws/customs at every possible turn.
I love the argument, "Jesus said he didn't come to do away with the old law, but to fulfill it, ergo the old law is still in effect." Haha, what a funny stance that one is! Once something's fulfilled, it's OVER. The prophecies of the OT are DONE... they're fulfilled... the NT is where it's at (that is, if you're a Christain )
^^^ Doc, that's a great point that the other side seems to miss, or chooses to ignore.
I'm sorry if it looks like I've slipped up anywhere. I did have one or two statements go off half-cocked,
but buckled down and went to the Book for support.
During the lifetime of Christ, the law had not yet been fulfilled, so much of what he says during his life may support the old law.
But His death and resurrection fulfilled the old law, and satisfied all of the prophecy from the Old Testament.
I guess, the atheists want us to be ancient Jews AND reborn Christians. It helps support their argument of contradiction.
Aside from the fact that the Old Testament provides some very important historical accounts, it is important in the Christian theology
because it tells us WHY Jesus is the Messiah. There was 400-something years of silence between the end of the Old Testament and Jesus' birth.
At that time the Jews were waiting for a Savior, much like reborn Christians wait for the Rapture. Some of them recognized who he was and followed his teachings during his life. Others recognized who he was and followed his teachings after the Resurrection.
Jesus sacrified himself to justify all of us in the eyes of God. We were slaves under the law and destined to death, but through faith we are given life.
I think that the Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. The main difference comes from recognition of Christ as the Savior.
How would you see far easter religions falling into the monotheistic view? Such as Hinduism with hundreds of gods?
In reference to my earlier statement ...."Oh, and I believe that all the gods are the same gods. You decide how you wish to percieve them (or not). "
Perception still applies. You percieve a god or gods (or none)....it is still a perception of an unproven entity. Just add or subtract an "s". A group of gods can contain 1, more than one, or null.
Just to quickly reply regarding Corinthians. Paul says that he personally does not excercise the rights granted to him by the gospel, as established in Mosaic Law. I omitted it because his personal choice is not relevant. What is important, and you are missing is that he reaffirms several times that they are 'rights granted by the gospel'. He is also saying it is his choice not to collect what is his by right, he says nothing about an option not to pay what is due.
I will cover Galatians in my disection because that letter and Romans address the same problem, though Romans is the more systematic treatise that methodolgically arranges the ideas that emerged in Galatians.
People cite Matthew because it is a)convenient b)Christ's own words. I will get into what fulfill actually means as described by Paul, and it is most assuredly consistent with God's own promise that the Law was everlasting.
As to Lev. You're correct I mis-cited, it should be Lev 18:22. You at least agree that it is listed as a capital offense. Your explanation as to why is 'your' explanation as to why, the scriptural explanation is that God finds it offensive. I think you'll find back at Lev 20:8 that you are incorrect that the death would somehow be incidental. God decrees that the following are his laws and is ordering the people to put them into practice. 20:17 specifies an offense where the execution must be public.
Oh, and the rights tha Paul refuses can be as simple as room and board. It is not some kind of guaranteed payday, as most people did not tithe with money back then. I think that practice stems from societies move to currency system from something that was closer to a barter system.
Regardless, whatever percentage someone feels is right to give back to God and His work, He owns you completely and it's all on loan to begin with.
Sorry I missed the question about my motivation. However, I already explained that enjoy discussing theology..provided it is a productive discussion.
What does it matter if the method of execution was decreed or not? Most of those passages are located in Duet.
If Paul affirms the Mosaic Law that priests can sustain themselves on what is collected in tithes, doesn't it logically follow that he is affirming the amount of 1/10th? Especially where the law in question states both premises in succession. 1/10th is to be paid in, from which the priests can draw income. I'm not sure what it matters if the system was barter or not, 1/10th of your income is 1/10th of your income whether it's in sheep or dollars.
You're being rather flippant about the Law not applying to Christians where I've just demonstrated that Paul upholds a Mosaic Law that is not one of the 10 commandments.
I'm not being flippant at all. You clearly don't understand the significance of Jesus' sacrifice, or His purpose.
Jesus was the Living God, God sacrificed His Son to save us from death under the law.
If you live your life by faith in Jesus Christ, and through the two laws he mentioned in Matthew, you would be a truly good Christian.
Most people aren't good at the second one (loving thy neighbor), and many don't obey the most important (placing God above all else).
The fact that you don't understand Christ's purpose and His sacrifice really puts us into a wall where I'm just driving the point home and you're struggling to upset me with the laws of Moses, the debt for which has already been paid in full.
There are numerous places where Paul suggests that converted Jews keep living like Jews, so they don't lose their significance as God's chosen.
But if you actually read Galations, like I suggested, you would see numerous verses referring to the fact that it is not necessary to circumcise the Gentiles (but that was a law and rite of the Jews).
Comments
First, I would like to apologize to any and all that are offended by this topic of discussion. I beleive I was the first to point out how dangerous this line of discussion is. But where people decided to discuss it anyway, I saw no reason not to add what knowledge I have on the subject. The discussion has been and remains to be a civil discourse. Suprisingly it has not degenerated into a flame war, and as long as the discussion remains civil and the other participants wish to continue the discussion, I see no reason not to do so.
A rather simple equation from a very old college class: "Teachings from ones youth" + "experiences from ones adolescence" = "beliefs in ones adulthood".
Works for fish, too.
I think that the Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. The main difference comes from recognition of Christ as the Savior.
How would you see far easter religions falling into the monotheistic view? Such as Hinduism with hundreds of gods?
^Well the Mormons lose 10% of their income or something like that... as for the rest of us, skankinmack is going to have to elaborate.
10% +
I've never missed it though
He's just saying that you owe him your whole life, and it's really all on loan from God in the first place.
^^^ That's an interesting notion.
I think that the Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. The main difference comes from recognition of Christ as the Savior.
How would you see far easter religions falling into the monotheistic view? Such as Hinduism with hundreds of gods?
Christians, Jews and Muslims do all worship the same God because each religion shares the Old Testament. It is because they share those same teachings, the major overlying theme of which is 'no other God before me', that the 3 religions will never have peace with one another. Christians and Muslims divide themselves from Judaism through new revelations, much the same way that Mormonism is divided from Christianity through it's new revelations.
Polytheism cannot be reconciled into a monotheistic view, the very nature of the 'one God' belief structure precludes it. It was devised with that in mind, in order to help preserve the cultural identity of the early Hebrews, and protect them from assimilation. It is just unfortunate that to achieve that separatism the Abrahamic religions are also constructed to be extremely intolerant of any other form of belief.
This divisive nature of the Old Testament is precisely why new revelation, which is essentially a new form of worship or even any differing interpretation of existing revelation, yields seperatist movements. Which is why there are some 2000+ sects of Christianity, the difference between teaching the Baptism or not is the difference between true faith and Satanism. God only allows for one correct path, one form of worship, which is why any other path or form of worship is treated as the false path or the worship of a false God.
There are some Christian sects that preach tolerance of other belief structures, however they are still renounced by the other sects for this deviation in teachings.
Technically, Jesus asks you to give him EVERYTHING, but I don't know that it's calling for direct financial outlay.
He's just saying that you owe him your whole life, and it's really all on loan from God in the first place.
The Old Testament dictates 10%, which most Christians do adhere to, especially Catholics.
I agree with your first paragraph, but that's about it. The polytheism question was directed to EarlyWorm. I was curious how he would reconcile that with his idea of them all being "the same, but different'
There is a difference between being intolerant and believing in one true path. Intolerance suggests persecution, hate, and destruction. There ARE intolerant people, on ALL sides of the issue of religion. There are intolerant atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, and others. Just like there are racist individuals from ALL races. No group gets a free pass from having to avoid the stigma.
Believing that there is only one path to God, though, doesn't mean I'm intolerant of others religions. I just try to live my life in a way that lets other people see God in my life, in my kindness or compassion. I'm not out in the world killing people and accosting unbelievers, as you seem to suggest any Abrahamic religion would support. You might want to reread the teachings of Jesus and rethink how he actually instructs us to live our lives before you jump to conclusions about people. Admittedly, people make mistakes and don't live like they should. But it's not the fault of their religion. It's their own failing that is to blame.
Intolerance means not granting equal freedom of expression, in this case it means not accepting seperatist beliefs. The Christian sects are divided by their interpretations of scripture, which alters their belief structure. If they were unified in all aspects of their belief they would all be one church, there would be no need for a separate structure. Separation means that they believe that their way or their interpretation is the correct way, conversely this means that the other ways are incorrect. Some churches leave it at just that, others do in fact believe that the other ways are hellbound. Calvanists, Adventists, and Baptists for example. Mormons even refer to the Christian churches as part of the 'Great Whore'.
Not all Abrahamic sects abide the scripture that outlines the best recourse for dealing with heretics and heathans is through death. Christians haven't really preached those sections en masse since the 17th century. Though you can see the passages in use in modern Islamic Fundamentalism.It's not a mistake if their religious scripture is open to that specific interpretation. Jesus may have preached peace, but there are passages that alot for using OT Law (which I still plan to address), that allowed for things like the inquisition, and behavior of Spanish Conquistadors to be perfectly in line with scripture.
That you do not accept those interpretations, and that you suggest it is not what God/Jesus intended, means that you are exhibiting the exact intolerance I am referring to.
It seems to me that everyone is free to express their beliefs. I'll grant that in many countries, this may not be true.
But tolerance doesn't mean agreement, or lack of argument/discourse on a subject.
Clearly, you seek to interpret the Bible to suit your negative arguments. People over history have done the same thing.
Just because you can take something out of context (historically, socially or otherwise) does not make it true.
All the "killing heathans and heretics" stuff is again, ancient law for the Jews.
The only old laws that apply to Christianity are the Ten Commandments, and accepting the salvation of Jesus Christ.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Christianity is about a relationship with God. At the end of the day, only He knows where you stand, and He'll be the final judge.
If intolerance is "not granting equal freedom of expression", in what way is that occuring?
It seems to me that everyone is free to express their beliefs. I'll grant that in many countries, this may not be true.
You're not taking the meaning quite correctly.
By dismissing my interpretations as out of context or agenda driven you are not 'granting me equal freedom of expression'. A clear example for you might be: Baptists being intolerant of the claim that baptism is not prerequisite to salvation, as that claim is contrary to their belief structure. If they didn't prohibit that claim, then Baptism would be meaningless, and they would forfeit one of the principle foundations of that sect.
I think you are confusing intolerance with bigotry, which we have plenty of in this country.
Anything further we discuss about the nature of the Law will likely challenge the foundation of your beliefs. If you are going to simply reject my arguments as misquotation and agenda driven atheism, rather than an argument based simply on the contents of the scripture as written, then there is no need to continue the discussion. I am not making an attempt at deconversion, I simply enjoy discussing theology. However, that enjoyment ceases when my arguments are not respected. By that I don't mean I expect you to agree, but I do expect that if you reject a premise that you at least provide some form of counter example or have me support it further, which is no less than the level of respect I have thusfar shown you. If you believe something I have stated is misquoted or out of context I will happily provide citation and further explanation, all you need do is ask.
Respond to the following only if you agree to those terms.
If people throughout history have found negative interpretations and contexts in the bible, then those contexts and interpretations exist in the bible. Whether or not they are accepted as true or correct is irrelevant, because they are there. That they are there means they are subject to use, or abuse as you would put it. The entire Christian religion used those (heretic) contexts as late the 16th-17th century, whether they were correct or true Christians or not is again irrelevant.
Christians are still citing Lev to persecute homosexuality, so either the Law is not as dead as you claim, or they as well are 'abusing' the scripture.
I think that Christians who cite Leviticus for ANYTHING other than a lesson on how the Hebrew people were different, are misguided, and THEY ARE abusing the scripture to spread hate. It is unfortunate, but it happens. It doesn't make them not Christians, it just makes them poorly educated Christians who, unfortunately can do more harm than good.
The only Law that matters is the 10 Commandments and that Jesus died so that we can be saved if we surrender to Him, and He was resurrected to sit at the Right Hand of God. It's pretty definitive.
I will admit that there is a lot of minutia in the Bible, with which it is easy to become distracted and miss the big picture. But every piece of history in there, and every allegory has a purpose if you read it in the company of the Holy Spirit.
Also, I don't disagree that MANY of the Christian denominations have separated for unecessary reasons, and choose to argue on points that don't matter in the greater scene. It's sad, and it hurts people, and it ruins many opportunities to have greater unity. It ruins many opportunities to appeal to those in need of God, as well. Instead of seeing God's love, they see your arguments of division and intolerance (which may appear valid from your perspective, I can't see through your eyes, so I can't assume to know what you feel).
Again, all that matters is surrendering your life to Christ and accepting Him as your Savior. He knows that you are not capable of satisfying the Law, though, and the only unforgivable sin is rejecting the Holy Spirit and the Salvation that it leads to.
Revelations talks about the way that the Church has become. With people who are overly proud and lack humility in the eyes of God. It's all a sign of what's to come, eventually.
But please, don't presume to put words in my mouth based on what you say other Christians might believe. I know what I believe. And I know that God confirms my belief daily. He does the same for my wife. It's a tough spiritual war to win, when we can't present a unified front, but groups making claims that aren't supported by the teachings of Jesus are misguided, plain and simple. You're welcome to dislike the establisment. Hell, I can't stand "megachurches" and "prosperity gospel" televangelists like Creflo Dollar. I think most of those people have been deceived, and will pay the price if they don't see the error in their ways. But just because some thing you read about somewhere is preaching hate, don't think for a second that it reflects the true Christian theology or belief.
Technically, Jesus asks you to give him EVERYTHING, but I don't know that it's calling for direct financial outlay.
He's just saying that you owe him your whole life, and it's really all on loan from God in the first place.
The Old Testament dictates 10%, which most Christians do adhere to, especially Catholics.
What the Old Testament say literally is to give 10% of the harvest and livestock to the poor, and not glean the fields so that they can get what's left.
But again, that's what the Jews were supposed to do. The New Testament instructs to give as you are led with a cheerful heart.
Also, back on the topic about the Law. Read Galations. It has some important reading material about being freed by faith in Jesus Christ.
I am happy to disect the books of St. Paul and conclude for you that the Law is still valid, and further establish that you cannot divorce the 10 commandments from the other statutes, laws and commandments. It will be a very long and drawnout process, and my willingness to do so will depend entirely on how you account for the following:
Does Lev 18:20 establish that a man lieing with another man as he would a woman is an abomination? And does Lev 20:13 Decree that that offense is punishable by death, and that the actors blood is on their own heads? If you find ambiguity to these passages, or that somehow they mean anything other than what is clearly presented, then our discussion has reached it's conclusion. Not to be critical, but I can only present to you that which is actually recorded in scripture, and if those passages are in your opinion subject to interpretation then we have a hit a wall I cannot hope to transcend.
Lev 27:30 says "And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the Lord's and it is holy unto the Lord". It doesn't say to give it to the priests, at least not in that passage. It says that the tithe is God's.
Jesus tells us that our entire lives belong to God.
1 Cor 9:13-14 states "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel"
BUT you take this out of context by ignoring the previous two verses:
1 Cor 9:11-12 states "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather? Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ"
Paul is actually pointing out that he does not want to accept any payment from the Corinthians because he feels like it interferes with his ability to spread the gospel.
Lev 18:20 says "Moreover thow shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile her thyself".
I'm not sure why you're bringing that up, since it hasn't been a point of debate.
Lev 20:13 says "if a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death, their blood shall be upon them".
It doesn't say to kill them yourself. Do I agree that what is stated there is an abomination? Well again, there is an argument of context. God is delivering commandments that serve two purposes: set His people apart from the rest of the world, and keep His people healthy and prolific. Supporting homosexuality serves neither of those goals, at that time in history. It's only very recently that modern conveniences allow homosexual men to even practice safe sex without the high likelihood of some sort of disease (not just STDs but salmonella and other bacterial infections). Clearly, no good comes from that practice in the ancient world. I don't presume to know what goes on in the heart or mind of a modern homosexual. My dad was an endocrynoligist, so he had some interesting stories about transexed people. Just like it's possible for someone to be a physical hermaphrodite, I'm sure it's possible for someone to have certain parts of their brain transsexed as well. But that issue is neither here nor there. That commandment, if it applied, doesn't command me to kill gay people as you seem to suggest. Any death associated with it is between them and God.
Regardless, you evidently have not read Galations as I suggested.
If you don't care to read Galations on the issues of law, try reading Matthew.
Mat 22:35-40: Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. THis is the first and great commandment. And the second is like uno it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Jesus clears it up right there.
Love God completely. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Satisfying the law is not entirely within our grasp, though, as you would know if you read Galations.
You are justified through FAITH, not through the law. There are no self-made men.
Faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, frees you from the death that comes from breaking the law (any law, so the homosexuals you were worried about can be saved as well).
Just as a point of curiosity. You seem extraordinarily attached to this discussion for claiming to have no belief in God. What motivates you to pursue this topic at all if you have so little invested in the matter?
I have read all if it,And it takes too much time.
EDIT
amn It I clicked on it again!!!
I hope you found it worth reading. It has some long posts, but their (almost) all worth reading.
Anyway, anyone still reading and taking the old testament text verbatim as God's law still to be upheld in the "Christian Era" in its entirety hasn't paid much attention to New Testament text; time and again Jesus (the Jew) shot down Jewish laws/customs at every possible turn.
I love the argument, "Jesus said he didn't come to do away with the old law, but to fulfill it, ergo the old law is still in effect." Haha, what a funny stance that one is! Once something's fulfilled, it's OVER. The prophecies of the OT are DONE... they're fulfilled... the NT is where it's at (that is, if you're a Christain
I'm sorry if it looks like I've slipped up anywhere. I did have one or two statements go off half-cocked,
but buckled down and went to the Book for support.
During the lifetime of Christ, the law had not yet been fulfilled, so much of what he says during his life may support the old law.
But His death and resurrection fulfilled the old law, and satisfied all of the prophecy from the Old Testament.
I guess, the atheists want us to be ancient Jews AND reborn Christians. It helps support their argument of contradiction.
Aside from the fact that the Old Testament provides some very important historical accounts, it is important in the Christian theology
because it tells us WHY Jesus is the Messiah. There was 400-something years of silence between the end of the Old Testament and Jesus' birth.
At that time the Jews were waiting for a Savior, much like reborn Christians wait for the Rapture. Some of them recognized who he was and followed his teachings during his life. Others recognized who he was and followed his teachings after the Resurrection.
Jesus sacrified himself to justify all of us in the eyes of God. We were slaves under the law and destined to death, but through faith we are given life.
^^^ That's an interesting notion.
I think that the Christians, Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. The main difference comes from recognition of Christ as the Savior.
How would you see far easter religions falling into the monotheistic view? Such as Hinduism with hundreds of gods?
In reference to my earlier statement ...."Oh, and I believe that all the gods are the same gods. You decide how you wish to percieve them (or not). "
Perception still applies. You percieve a god or gods (or none)....it is still a perception of an unproven entity. Just add or subtract an "s". A group of gods can contain 1, more than one, or null.
I will cover Galatians in my disection because that letter and Romans address the same problem, though Romans is the more systematic treatise that methodolgically arranges the ideas that emerged in Galatians.
People cite Matthew because it is a)convenient b)Christ's own words. I will get into what fulfill actually means as described by Paul, and it is most assuredly consistent with God's own promise that the Law was everlasting.
As to Lev. You're correct I mis-cited, it should be Lev 18:22. You at least agree that it is listed as a capital offense. Your explanation as to why is 'your' explanation as to why, the scriptural explanation is that God finds it offensive. I think you'll find back at Lev 20:8 that you are incorrect that the death would somehow be incidental. God decrees that the following are his laws and is ordering the people to put them into practice. 20:17 specifies an offense where the execution must be public.
Anyway, it's not relevant for the exact reasons cited by Dr. Morbis, and because of what I've been saying all along.
You dodged my personal question, btw
Regardless, whatever percentage someone feels is right to give back to God and His work, He owns you completely and it's all on loan to begin with.
What does it matter if the method of execution was decreed or not? Most of those passages are located in Duet.
If Paul affirms the Mosaic Law that priests can sustain themselves on what is collected in tithes, doesn't it logically follow that he is affirming the amount of 1/10th? Especially where the law in question states both premises in succession. 1/10th is to be paid in, from which the priests can draw income. I'm not sure what it matters if the system was barter or not, 1/10th of your income is 1/10th of your income whether it's in sheep or dollars.
You're being rather flippant about the Law not applying to Christians where I've just demonstrated that Paul upholds a Mosaic Law that is not one of the 10 commandments.
Jesus was the Living God, God sacrificed His Son to save us from death under the law.
If you live your life by faith in Jesus Christ, and through the two laws he mentioned in Matthew, you would be a truly good Christian.
Most people aren't good at the second one (loving thy neighbor), and many don't obey the most important (placing God above all else).
The fact that you don't understand Christ's purpose and His sacrifice really puts us into a wall where I'm just driving the point home and you're struggling to upset me with the laws of Moses, the debt for which has already been paid in full.
There are numerous places where Paul suggests that converted Jews keep living like Jews, so they don't lose their significance as God's chosen.
But if you actually read Galations, like I suggested, you would see numerous verses referring to the fact that it is not necessary to circumcise the Gentiles (but that was a law and rite of the Jews).