Christians break the Golden Rule when accepting Jesus as savior.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Greatest I am, Feb 21, 2017.

  1. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,832
    It is notable how people attacking Christianity like to resort to quotations from the Old Testament. The whole difference between Christianity and Judaism is the New Testament, what Christ and St. Paul say that differs, or moves on from, how things are expressed in the OT, and how that has been interpreted and embellished by Christian theology subsequently.

    Basing an argument on the OT alone is erecting a straw man.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,656
    I knew you were an anal orifice.

    Regards
    DL
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,656
    Yet Jesus did just that for his no divorce policy.

    You are thus refuted.

    Regards
    DL
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Kittamaru Now nearly 40 pounds lighter. Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,169
    Except for the fact that Jesus gets to establish the New Law... his reference to previous law is, ultimately, irrelevant, as it was his word that made it law again.

    You are thus refuted.
     
  8. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,656
    You lie as the Jews did not accept his no divorce law due to what Jesus called their hardness of heart.

    Regards
    DL
     
  9. spidergoat Speak of the Devil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,239
    Ten Commandments are OT. Nothing more Christian than that.
     
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,245
    That's some really subtle irony.

    Good one, though.
     
  11. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,832
    No, I don't think that is right at all. In fact, Christ in the NT specifically gives two new commandments, which he says embrace everything in the old : you should love God with all your heart, soul and strength; and you should love your neighbour as yourself. He says these two are equivalent to all the law and the prophets, if I recall.

    I agree in practice Christian people have quite reasonably seen the 10 commandments as things to obey, as they are more legalistic. But for sure, the NT words of Christ on this topic are - be definition - the "more Christian" of the two.
     
    Greatest I am likes this.
  12. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,656
    True, but do you see those as good?

    Remember that to those, women are possessions and chattel.



    Regards
    DL
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    In Mathew 5:17, Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.

    What that means is the New Testament is not a new set of laws, with the old laws now taboo. Rather the NT is like an upgrade, into version 2.0. However, there will still be tech support for the older version 1.21.

    The Old Testament law is like an operating system for human nature. When there is a Windows or IOS upgrade, more advanced featured are added to the newer version 2.0. However, the old system is not junked, but rather software support will still be provided for those who are more comfortable with the older system. It is OK to use either, but the NT is a more advanced version.

    Paul distinguishes between these two operating systems. The new system was based on faith. All that is asked is to love God and love your neighbor. This is very open ended and very vague It requires faith in your inner voice and intuitive judgements. One may need to become creative and make unique judgements in unique situations where there is no law. The old system was based on laws, rules and procedures, which does not require faith, allowing even a nonbeliever to follow the rules, and be righteous.

    Within Christianity, both versions are allowable, depending on whether one is a child of the promise; NT, or a child of the bondwoman; OT. The children of the promise are like sons and daughters of God, which means you are given a lot of slack, as you learn the charisma of faith.

    Romans 4:7 "Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.

    The children of the bondwoman are more like the children of a servant, who have the ten commandments plus additional laws and rules to follow as a servant.

    Ironically, many atheists chose a path, that is loosely similar to the children of the promise. Many try to do good, but they do not believe and/or follow the old laws. Many will experiment and take more liberty when choosing paths for themselves. But they lack the charisma of faith and are therefore, like adopted sons and daughters; halfway house.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2017
  14. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,536
    What version are we up to now?

    Will we reach stage where keeping the old version and, like Widows, support is dropped forcing you to move to the new system?

    So they never create their own operating system?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Greatest I am Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,656
    If the first covenant was worthy, a second would not be required.

    The second covenant looks like garbage given that it has created such an immoral religion.

    Let us pray to all the Gods that Yahweh gets it right with version 3.

    Regards
    DL
     
  16. spidergoat Speak of the Devil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,239
    Well I'm glad god cleared all that up then.
     
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,832
    Haha, yes, none of this is to claim that any one religion is more "correct" than another. It's merely an observation about the relationship between one religion and its ancestor (or one of them). Human ideas so often build on earlier ones. A scholarly approach to the Humanities should respect such things, in my view.
     

Share This Page