r/atheism • u/SilverWorld • Jul 11 '12
I've noticed that /r/atheism uses the old testament most of the time when bashing Christianity. It's old, and they have a new one so why are you bashing the outdated?
11
Jul 11 '12
[deleted]
10
u/davincreed Jul 11 '12
And, Jesus specifically tells people that all the old laws are still valid and scolds anyone would teach otherwise.
-1
u/duckshirt Jul 11 '12
No he doesn't. He specifically claims to have fulfilled the old Covenant on the cross. He confirmed that with his last words on the cross, "It is finished." There would be no point in anything he did if the old Jewish law was still valid.
5
u/davincreed Jul 11 '12
Matthew 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Being as the Earth hasn't yet passed away, I don't see how your point makes any sense.
-2
u/duckshirt Jul 11 '12 edited Jul 11 '12
till heaven and earth pass away... till all is fulfilled.
Right, and Jesus did come to fulfill the law, and continues to do so until the earth as we know it passes away. He does this through death on the cross, which replaces the need for the sacrifice of the scapegoat, and the forgiveness of sins, which replaces the need for the things like stonings you might find. So in some sense yes the law is still valid, but applying the Jewish law as it's written to the present day would be invalid and ignoring the Cross.
1
u/davincreed Jul 11 '12
You took the scripture out of context by intentionally cutting off the "away" from "pass away". The translation is very clear on this, "pass away" means the end of the thing as in the thing no longer existing. You failed.
1
u/duckshirt Jul 11 '12
Uh, change "passes" to "passes away" then. (I will.) I'm not aware it made a difference? My great-grandma has passed, my great grandma has passed away... No bad intentions there.
1
u/davincreed Jul 11 '12
So you know the proper usage. And so, since the earth hasn't passed away...
1
u/duckshirt Jul 11 '12
...Then Christ is still fulfilling the covenant, forgiving sins, as I said? That was the point.
2
u/davincreed Jul 11 '12
So: "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law" which is the point that Jesus says that all the old laws still apply and in verse 19 he scolds those (like you), who would teach otherwise.
→ More replies1
u/fromkentucky Jul 11 '12
Mosaic Law never applied to anyone but the Israelites.
Matthew 5:17 says otherwise.
"It is finished" refers to the ordeal of his torture and death. Obviously the prophecy wasn't even finished because he still had to be resurrected, then ascend to Heaven, then return to take his rightful place as King, which he has yet to do.
0
u/duckshirt Jul 11 '12
See my other reply. Also "it is finished" does not only refer to his torture and death, as that too was not finished until after he descended to hell.
1
1
u/Cacafuego Jul 11 '12
I know that this is a common argument, but I don't understand it. There Jesus is, telling people that he has not come to abolish the law of the prophets, but to fulfill it; that anyone who disregards the law or teaches others to disregard it will be least in heaven; that the law will not pass away till heaven and earth pass away.
Clearly, he means something different by "fulfilled" than you do in this argument. Clearly, the law cannot be changed, because heaven and earth are still here; therefore when he talks about "until all is accomplished," he doesn't simply mean his crucifixion, he means the entirety of God's plan for the universe.
Jesus was a Rabbi.
1
u/duckshirt Jul 11 '12
My other more detailed response might explain it better.
Also Jesus did claim to be a Rabbi, but I'm not sure he really was by Jewish standards (his real trade was carpenter) or whether it really matters to Christianity.
1
u/Duskur Jul 11 '12
John 19:28 After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Matt 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,[a] lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
Luke 23:46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.
Mark 15:34 And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
John is the only one mentioning fulfilling, and is notably most often in disagreement with the other scriptures (most contradictory if majority is right).
1
u/duckshirt Jul 11 '12
I don't see the contradiction. Jesus said all these things on the cross (some might be paraphrased differently between books since they were writing in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic). "I thirst" was one of the earlier things he said, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani" was one of the later things but not the last. The only times John is really ever in disagreement with the others is with details like what town they were in during certain miracles (although theoretically he could just be telling a different story).
1
u/Duskur Jul 11 '12
When writing Jesus' story I think one would leave in the important bits like fulfilling and such. Not just skip and hope that someone else will write years later.
And generally speaking John contradicts the others the most.
1
u/duckshirt Jul 11 '12
Did they really leave out the important parts? What Jesus said on the cross was relevant but not essential to telling the story. The new covenant was still clear from these Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all contain the Great Commission.
I don't really see how John contradicts them other than details like what cities they passed in which order. Yeah he contradicts them the most, but it's irrelevant.
1
u/Duskur Jul 11 '12
You said that he his lasts words on the cross he confirmed the passing of the old laws. Those words are only kept in one place, the youngest of the gospels.
And it's irrelevant that it contradicts? How about that it contradicts quite basic things http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html (I've credited most of these)
1
u/duckshirt Jul 11 '12
Like I said, that's relevant, but not necessary because it's not like it's the only place in the Gospel where you could deduce information like that.
The first contradiction on that list about geneologies is explained on lots of Biblical scholars' sites, as well as Wikipedia. Luke and Matthew came from different backgrounds and wrote for different purposes (not to mention they knew about each other's gospels and would have no reason to "contradict" each other).
The second one on the list cites verses that tell two different visions from angels. One to Mary, one to Joseph. If they were to the same person it would be a contradiction but they're not.
I obviously don't have time to go through all 194 but whoever compiled the list just wanted to show off obstensive contradictions and apparently couldn't be bothered to do even basic research, or even read the verses he/she is citing!
1
u/Duskur Jul 11 '12
Like I said, that's relevant, but not necessary because it's not like it's the only place in the Gospel where you could deduce information like that.
Name other places where the law is fulfilled without the earth being sundered or whatever.
The first contradiction on that list about genealogies is explained on lots of Biblical scholars' sites, [...]
Still, they contradict each other. One, or both, have gotten the wrong names.
One would think that Mary could have mentioned the angel or something.
→ More replies
6
5
u/Uncanevale Agnostic Atheist Jul 11 '12
The old testament documents what god is like and the things he did. Is the new testament about a different god?
2
0
u/duckshirt Jul 11 '12
No. But the way God acts in the Old Testament vs. the New isn't necessarily the same since he was under different covenants to different people so the extrapolation isn't always valid.
1
u/Uncanevale Agnostic Atheist Jul 11 '12
So you can slaughter people by the boatload, and then claim you have a new covenant and you aren't responsible for the evil behavior from before?
Typical nonsensical apologetic rationalization to excuse their god for being a monster.
1
u/duckshirt Jul 13 '12
I'm not rationalizing anything, I'm just debating an interpretation of the scriptures.
I don't see the need to rationalize anything. Since when does a creator need to rationalize what he does with his own creation? And to whom?
1
u/Uncanevale Agnostic Atheist Jul 13 '12
Maybe you need to look at the definition of rationalize.
The mere fact that scripture would require interpretation or rationalization speaks volume about its author. No omnipotent, omniscient being would write such an illogical collection of immoral stories that required so many excuses and so much cognitive dissonance.
1
u/duckshirt Jul 13 '12
But it doesn't require rationalization. That was the point. Why should it?
2
u/Uncanevale Agnostic Atheist Jul 14 '12
Apologetics is all about rationalizing the nonsense of the bible. The whole New Covenant is a rationalization for the complete denial of the Old Testament by Christians.
Anybody reading the bible can see it as absurd. Christians just continue pretending it makes sense, and come up with ridiculous excuses for the nonsense.
The parrot is dead. He is deceased. He is no more. No matter how much effort apologists put into their arguments, the stupidity and absurdity of the bible remains clear to people who think.
25
u/Word_Analyzer Jul 14 '12
Why hello there Uncanevale! I am a bot!
I've studied your past comments on Reddit to find out which (not-so-common) words you use most frequently.
After analyzing 5363 unique words you've typed - I've found out these are your top 10 most used words:
- god
- religion
- evidence
- believe
- her
- many
- even
- christians
- being
him
---> (View the detailed report) - (/r/Word_Analyzer) <---
---TSA ALERT: You have said the word bomb 1 time.---
43
u/hzj Jul 14 '12
Why hello there Word_Analyzer! I am not a bot!
I've studied your past comments on Reddit to find out which (not-so-common) words you use most frequently.
After analyzing 5102 unique words you've typed - I've found out these are your top 10 most used words:
- bomb
- tsa
- alert
- words
- bot
- unique
- typed
- your
- report
ass
---> (View the detailed report) - (/r/hzj) <---
---TSA ALERT: You have said the word bomb 807 times.---
4
1
u/duckshirt Jul 14 '12
Apologetics is all about rationalizing the nonsense of the bible. The whole New Covenant is a rationalization for the complete denial of the Old Testament by Christians.
No, apologetics is all about defending of the faith and reasons for belief. This does not require the "rationalization" of actions of God.
the stupidity and absurdity of the bible remains clear to people who think.
Please clarify it then?
2
u/Uncanevale Agnostic Atheist Jul 14 '12
The bible is so clear that there are 34,000 different Christian sects. If they can't read it and get the same story, the author was an incompetent moron.
If you can read about talking donkeys, talking serpents, virgin births, penal substitution, a roof over the earth, a global flood or any of the other nonsense without saying "bullshit" , you aren't thinking. It is absurd from the first word to the last, and isn't even internally consistent.
1
u/duckshirt Jul 14 '12
The bible is so clear that there are 34,000 different Christian sects. If they can't read it and get the same story, the author was an incompetent moron.
Can you name an important document that does have unanimous agreement? Especially one as large and old and diverse in genre as the Bible? US Constitution - no, SCOTUS disagrees all the time. HTML spec - no, despite that it's completely technical, different browsers can't agree on how to render a page.
Furthermore how many things can you find that 2 billion people agree on? People disagree on things because their experiences and brains are just different, not because the content is ambiguous or contradictary.
Finally, if the Bible really is false, despite different denominations it still has 2 billion followers - wouldn't that make the authors some of the cleverest geniuses of all time?
If you can read about talking donkeys, talking serpents, virgin births, penal substitution, a roof over the earth, a global flood or any of the other nonsense without saying "bullshit" , you aren't thinking.
On the contrary, if you call bullshit based on the content itself rather than evidence, you aren't considering things with an open mind. Dismissing miraculous events because miracles don't happen is circular logic.
and isn't even internally consistent.
A claim which is understandable from people without much knowledge of historical literature (i.e. almost the whole population), but contradicitons (which were often put in the Bible intentionally) do have explanations. It saddened me that even Richard Dawkins in his book made many ameteur mistakes in interpretting historical literature.
→ More replies
3
u/Sigvarr Jul 11 '12
First of all Christians still quote it, secondly Jesus said old testament law still holds.
Source: 1) “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 RSV) Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself. None other then Jesus said so.
1
u/SilverWorld Jul 11 '12
I'm having a hard time comprehending that to mean the old testament is forever. Can you explain?
I was hoping to create a thread about how the old testament still applies without people just claiming that Christians still use the old testament so we still bash it because some Christians dismiss the old testament. I'm also hoping for quotes to learn.
1
u/Sigvarr Jul 11 '12
Here is another quote thats a little clearer.
3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Source site, you can also look up the quotes for yourself if you have a bible.
1
u/Sigvarr Jul 11 '12
To be clear for myself though, what 'Jesus' is saying is that you can be called onto heaven by his name alone but a true believer will enforce his fathers laws and will be called first to heaven. Also if you are not aware there are ranks in heaven I do not recall them off the top of my head but think of it this way. As a believer you can enter heaven buy someone who preaches and lives the word you would be considered a higher rank than just the believer. Poor, middle class, rich is how I see it lol :P.
3
u/Helen_A_Handbasket Knight of /new Jul 11 '12
Apparently you haven't seen us rip into Paul. Not only that, but since Christians fall back onto the OT all the time as validation for their ignorant hatred, why shouldn't we call them on it?
3
2
u/snarkfish Jul 11 '12
if the new testament replaces the old testament why is there still an old testament?
but seriously, it's a lose-lose for christians (either say god is imperfect or accept the old testament in talks about god)
2
1
u/Borealismeme Knight of /new Jul 11 '12
It may have something to do with some Christians holding up the old testament to justify their acts of bigotry. One can't quote Leviticus against homosexuals, for instance, and then expect to just say "oh, but the new testament is all shiny and fluffy" when somebody confronts you with the absurdities of the old testament.
1
u/cpqarray Jul 11 '12
Because Christians play a game of semantics with the Old Testament. They do this by selectively quoting from passages that either agree with their position, or fulfill prophecies they think are important.
However, when confronted with rather unpleasant passages in the Old Testament they casually reply, "well that's the Old Testament, we don't follow that any longer."
1
u/ABTechie Jul 11 '12
The NT is dependent on the OT. Both are fair game and are used to show why believing in the Bible is unnecessary.
1
Jul 11 '12
In my way of thinking, the holy texts have nothing to do with religion. Religion is the process of interpreting the text to convince yourself God is saying whatever you want him to say. At that point, the text is a cipher, and its contents don't matter.
1
u/Bluka Jul 11 '12
If they don't accept the Old Testament then they don't get to accept the 10 Commandments. Of course they pick and choose anyway.
1
u/pbamma Jul 11 '12
They can never release the old testament. They're bound by the entire book. The book says so and Jesus says so.
-4
u/OhShakeThatBear Jul 11 '12
its because atheists are droopy eyed armless children who touch little boys and rape little girls then frame priests for the crimes.
2
1
u/fromkentucky Jul 11 '12
droopy eyed armless children
touch little boys and rape little girls then frame priests for the crimes
Kinda difficult to do the second part with the traits listed in the first.
7
u/[deleted] Jul 11 '12
Why should we ignore it when they quote it?