Thomas, there's actually a very simple solution to the problem you raise: Sacred Tradition. What you state is only a potential difficulty for Protestants, not Catholics or Orthodox, and even they rely on it unconsciously. You indirectly hint at this, but don't seem to really understand it. Are you sure you know Christianity as well as you seem to think?

By the way, Tim, Reynolds is actually a nominal Presbyterian, though one is hard-pressed to see evidence of that on Instapundit.

Posted by: Varenius on November 18, 2005 01:27 PM

Thomas...

First, are Christians to abide by the laws set down in the Old Testament or not? ... Christians that don’t like the horrid implications in the prose of the Old Testament will generally fall back on the argument that a new covenant was struck with the coming Jesus...

Ummm... that's a bit like arguing: "Dairy farmers who don't like the implication that milk is a deadly poison will generally fall back on the argument that studies show it can be consumed without obvious visible harm."

It's not merely a rhetorical dodge (nor do I feel, in the slightest, the need for one, as you seem to be implying) to point out a New Covenant was struck with the coming of Jesus. It is, in fact, what the bible itself teaches:

In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:20)

By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (Heb 8:15)

Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. (Heb 9:15)

I agree that it's best to argue against Christians from the bible. It would seem a very effective way of disproving their arguments, if one could demonstrate that the bible teaches the exact opposite of what they say. It would be rather elegant to say: "Even if we take their assumptions..." (as I try to do to my opponents) and then show that, granted all assumptions, their arguments still don't make sense. That's a very powerful kind of argument.

Perhaps you should adopt that technique?

Of course, if it is true that the Old Testament is to be ignored, then the Ten Commandments are also to be ignored.

This is what's called a "straw man argument". It's where you present a false version of your opponent's position. Christians DON'T argue that the "Old Testament is to be ignored". Look here, at what the New Testament teaches about the old:

All Scripture [the author is referring to the Old Testament here] is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness... (2 Tim 3:16)

You are imply that either Christians must be under Old Testament "law" (Torah), or that all those laws must not apply to them, and must be utterly "ignored."

That's silly: there are other options than "legally binding" and "ignored". Since some parts of the OT "Law" (Torah) tell us about God's character ("This is detestable to me..."), and the bible teaches God is eternal and "his" essential character doesn't change, such things can also teach us about what God still likes and doesn't like. That is what the verse above is saying: it is useful for teaching righteousness, even if we don't have to observe all the bits about food-handling practices.

The other logical fallacy you're committing here is called "false dilemma", where it is implied there are only two possible options, when in fact there are three or many more.

Specificly, you imply that if we're no longer under one specific legal code, then none of those laws can still apply. But you forget that I might have transferred to another area, and legal code, having some commonality, and some differences.

Say I was born in England. In England, it's illegal to write libelous things about royalty. It's also illegal to murder people.

Then I move to America. Since I'm no longer under English law, and (truly) I can now write libelous things about the royals. Therefore, according to your argument, it must also be fine for me to murder people! After all, that was part of English law, and the only possibility, you argue, is that either it must all apply, or none of it does. Again, you're resorting to a well-known logical fallacy to support your conclusion.

And in regard to the possibility that one is simply under a different law -- interestingly, that is exactly the bible teaches:

I myself am not under the law [meaning the Old Testament law]... though I am not free from God's law, but am under Christ's law. (excerpted from 1 Cor 9:20,21)

That's precisely what the "new covenant" you referred to means -- not that there is NO set of rules between Christians and God, but that there is a NEW and different contract available between God and man; rules taught, and instructions given, through the Holy Spirit.

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7:6)

Second, should Christians take the Bible literally or not? ... Taken literally, adultery should be punished by death.

First I think there's a phrasing problem in your statment: I think you don't mean to use the word "literally" here.

If I'm reading English law, and it says not to slander or libel the royalty, the issue isn't whether I take it "literally" or not. The issue is whether it applies to me or not. It quite literally does mean that it's illegal in England. The reason this law doesn't apply to me is not because I somehow re-interpret it. (Perhaps to mean: "eat burritos daily!" or some other such meaning.) The reason it doesn't apply to me is because I'm not a British citizen!

And you seem to buy the line (which usually comes from atheists, not Christians) that the whole bible must either be taken "literally" or not (even if we actually use the correct meaning of the term).

Of course, that's absurd, and another straw man argument, to boot: No Christian argues that. The bible contains poetry, metaphor, prophetic imagery, fictional stories ("parables") and all sorts of literary devices. You have to read each passage in context and understand what it is trying to say. That's a basic principle of "exegesis".

And yes, even "believers" disagree on the correct or best interpretation in certain areas, but the same is true of any field of inquiry (science, literature, history, psychology) which involves incomplete knowledge and is subject human error.

Because two historians debate what might have been meant by a particular Egyptian or Sanskrit word, that doesn't mean there the ancient author had no specific meaning in mind, nor that all Egyptian or Sanskrit documents are meaningless. The same would equally apply to the bible.

Allegorical interpretation quickly leads to sophist anarchy.... Going down this road, almost any passage can be reinterpreted to mean whatever anyone wants.

Only for sophists who wish for that to be true.

Look, you're trying hard to make an argument about the bible, but it could be made about ANY document. For another example, I could argue that because C.S. Lewis sometimes wrote fictional stories, therefore his autobiographical works must be just as easily believed to allegory. Perhaps, when Lewis wrote he was an Oxford Don, he really meant he was a jelly doughnut! (Like JFK.) If Naria could be "interpreted" as an allegory, then (by your argument) that "slippery slope" must lead, inexorably, to believing his autobiographical account of his wife's death was equally fantastic and allegorical!

Yet that's clearly absurd to any rational human. Yes, of course there is a subjective (and thus error-prone) aspect to all human experience (including interpreting texts). But it doesn't immediately follow that all interpretations must then be accepted as equally plausable. I'm sure you yourself would laugh at such an argument if someone tried it elsewhere, but you seem to think as long as such a fallacious form of argument is directed at the bible, then suddenly said argument becomes viable and sound.

No, fallacious forms of reasoning are fallacious, no matter which subject you are applying them to.

This was dispensed with earlier: The issue isn't that people don't take that rule "literally" now. The issue is that this particular reaction (capital punishment for adultery) doesn't apply anymore -- it is no longer mandated. (See the bit about the "new covenant".)

Christians aren't "re-interpreting" these passages. They're pointing out that (should any of us fail to notice it) that we are not all Jews, living in a nation with a single belief system, and that the purpose of the law was fulfilled already, so it's need has passed away.

If an access road says "authorized vehicles only", and I'm a policeman, I can use it NOT because I somehow "re-interpret" the sign, but because the prohibition doesn't apply to me.

Ok. So, is adultery bad and should it be punishable or not?

Adultery was bad in the Old Testament. The punishment given, to indicate just how bad it was, was given as death. As it says in the Law (Torah): "The soul who sins must die."

Adultery is still bad in the New Testament: When a woman caught in adultery is brought to Jesus, he gets her off the hook by suggesting the person with no sin throw the first stone. But it isn't because adultery suddenly became right: Jesus ends by telling her: "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:1-11)

The point of this is of course that, having now understood that sin is bad, and that the penatly of sin, according the God of the bible, is death, there is this new focus called "forgiveness" which came, so the bible teaches, through the ministry and death of Jesus. You can't really understand forgivness until you understand the idea of having done something wrong.

So yes, adultery is still bad -- so bad that God thinks it deserves death. But he'd rather we simply ask forgiveness, after having understood and admitted that it was indeed a very bad thing we did.

Addressing your general point again: Of course different cultures see things differently. You don't even have to go that far: as you point out above, different people often see the same thing differently. Four blind men grasp an elephant, and one deduces a rope (the tail), a tree (the legs), a snake (the trunk) or smooth rail (the tusk).

But, again, so what? If the bible must be of no use, or have no generally agreed-upon aspects because of the possibility of subjective perception, then neither can anything else, including our poor elephant.

On a different note, the best people to debate Christians are former Christians...

In theory, I'd heartily agree with you. In practice, I don't notice it working so well.

(a) Most the "former Christians" I run into seem to have a rather mixed-up view of what Christianity teaches (often, they're arguing against something which isn't even taught by the bible).

(b) As far as I can see, most the prominent opponents of Christians are NOT former Christians (except perhaps in a general cultural sense). For example, Betrand Russell, Edgar Allen Poe, H.G. Wells, Ayn Rand, Aldous Huxley, Thomas Flew, Sartre, L. Ron Hubbard, Albert Camus, Camille Paglia, John Lennon, John Stuart Mill, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, etc. These are some of the most famous people who have opposed Christianity, and, to the best of my knowledge, none of them had been formerly been serious, adult Christians.

Now, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. (Tori Amos, I think, claims to be a former Christian, though I'd hardly invoke her as someone who "debates" Christians.) I'm just pointing out it seems to be more the exception than the rule.

Conversely, it does seem that it goes the other way around quite often: The Apostle Paul started out by murdering Christians. The famous apologist G.K. Chesterton had been a skeptic most his life. C.S. Lewis was moderately famous as an atheist. Josh McDowell, a popular contemporary Christian apologist began as an atheist attempting to undermine the bible. And more recently we have the spectacle of the famous atheist Anthony Flew becoming -- though not a Christian -- a theist. Good heavens, I myself seriously considered becoming an atheist for a while, and read everything I could by atheists. (In fact. that experience, and all the logical fallacies I saw being offered, persuaded me to look in quite the other direction...)

... and the best tool to debate a Christian is in fact the Bible.

As noted above, I agree completely! So I find it interesting that, having said this, your arguments above are nearly completely devoid of actual biblical content. You seem content to merely start with a few logical fallacies and then apply them to a single verse, or just follow your own train of thought about the bible, rather than using it as a goldmine for evidence against some Christian belief.

Most Christians have not really read the Bible cover to cover and truly absorbed the implications of the passages therein.

I'm not sure about "most", but certainly it's a large book, and some what you say is certainly true of some signficent percentage of Christians.

But the amazing thing is that most critics, in my experience, reject it while knowing even less -- as though one has first made up one's mind, and only then looked at the evidence, and perhaps only to find means of trying to justify the foregone conclusion.

Not to shame you, but look at your own arguments:

Perhaps I'm mistaken (let me know if so) but you seemed not to know that the Jesus himself taught the idea of the new covenant, and instead seemed to think it was just something made up to "ignore" of the Old Testament. Yet this is something even a newbie Christian will generally be familliar with.

Likewise, you seemed to think that unless we are supposed to obey every rule in the old testament, then the only other option is that NONE of those rules must still be valid. But the bible itself provides the idea of a third possibility -- another covenant, another guide to moral living (having some overlap, and some differences) -- as the answer to this alleged dilemma.

Again, even some of the youngest, least informed Christians know this.

Again, I'm not trying to fault you for not knowing my own 'religion'. There are all kinds of things I don't know too. But I don't usually run around lecturing those who probably, on average, study them more than I do about how wrong they are in those areas.

But there's something very curious about the bible which seems to elicit this behavior.

Either we evaluate the book as one that describes the evolution of a typical superstitious middle-eastern culture (in which case the validity of the claim that said deity exists in the first place is open for debate) or we evaluate the book as the (queue the angelic music) word of this deity to be taken literally. You can’t (logically) have it both ways.

Except for the repeated false dilemma (about everthing/nothing being literal) I'd agree completely. And which way someone sees it often depends on his or her foregone conclusions.

If you begin with the assumption that it is impossible for any sort of God to exist, then you must of course reject the idea that God could ever communicate with anyone, or teach anyone anything, including, of course, the bits alleged in the bible.

On the other hand, if we admit the possibility God might exist, or merely keep an open mind on the issue, then we'd actually have to work out the question another way: look at evidence pro and con, think about each idea (from each side) might be proven or disproven, etc. Lots of hard work involved there; I've experienced this firsthand, having gone through it over the course of many years.

Finally, I'm just curious: what do you make of biblical prophecy which described Jesus's life and allegedly sin-forgiving death several hundred years before he was born? (Isaiah 53) I'd be interested to know how you'd see that.

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on November 18, 2005 11:27 PM

Varenius...

By the way, Tim, Reynolds is actually a nominal Presbyterian, though one is hard-pressed to see evidence of that on Instapundit.

I grew up as a Presbyterian! But the PCUSA is morphing into something I can't recognize at all.

And yes, actually, what you said surprised me.

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on November 18, 2005 11:30 PM

Thomas

No. You are talking about option 3 again, which is “we obey some of them.” Ok which ones? Who chooses? Are the choices set in stone? How do we know that the people that make the choices are in fact making “god’s choice”? This is more of the relativist point of view that allows Christians to ignore the parts of their dogma that is undesirable and emphasize those that are desirable.

If you had even 1/10th of the grounding in Christian theology and church history that you claim, you wouldn't have to ask such a basic question. Start with Paul's letter to the Galatians, then read through the rest of Paul's epistles, then go back and read Acts and the gospels, and you'll begin to get a clear sense of how the new covenant in NT Theology replaces the Old Covenant, how the benefits of the new covenant are made available to gentiles, how gentile and Jewish Christians are to relate to the ceremonial law, and how the moral law is made even more immediate and personal under the new covenant. This truly is basic stuff.

As to Isaiah, it's fair to say that Isaiah is a dense and difficult text and that there are many nuances in how the NT writers apply it. In particular, Isaiah 19:23-24 speaks of events that are to happen in the "day of the Lord." If you studied OT Theology at all, you'll know that the "day of the Lord" is the day of final judgment; and if you studied NT theology at all, you'll know that the "day of the Lord" is yet to come when Christ returns. Thus, the prophecies in Is. 19 that you refer to a time that is yet in the future.

Likewise, the prophecy concerning Babylon in Isaiah 13 relates to the "day of the Lord" and the descriptions there, including the possible references to mythical creatures from canannite literature, must be understood in that context. Biblical apocalyptic literature often contains symbols and hyperbole.

As to Isaiah 7:14, Emmanuel, or "God with Us," is a title reflecting the nature of the messiah, not necessarily his given name. We see this also in Isaiah 9:6, which states the messiah shall be called "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Eather, Prince of Peace." The symbolic nature of the name Emmanuel is reflected in Matthew 1:18-23.

Posted by: dopderbeck on November 20, 2005 03:11 PM

Thomas,

Well, very good to hear back from you.

The original post to which you responded claimed that any decree from God such as not to eat shrimp was morally equivalent to any other decree such as homosexuality.

I suppose you can say that, but sort of as a side effect. The core argument was that it's fallacious to imply that if one OT rule is moot, then the others must be moot too. There might be reasons for some to apply, and some not. And then I produced good reasons, show how the cited text itself make distinctions between the two.

As best I can see, that point still stands, and isn't even addressed in your most recent response, other than to dismiss pointing that out "word games" (while giving no evidence as to why that's supposedly dishonest).

But I'll try to answer your other points anyway...

This jump of logic is clearly flawed as we can determine the degree of moral equivalence intended by the consequence of the action.

Err, um, my point is simply that God never said that he found eating shrimp objectionable, meaning that there's nothing inherantly wrong with that. He simply told the Jews to find it objectionable.

As far as determining the consequences of actions, you are implying you believe humans are good at doing that. I don't think so: there's nothing in human history which seems to suggest people nor societies are good at forseeing the consequences of their actions.

And, if you're an atheist, it's a meaningless question anyway, since "consequences" are based on one's values, which are inherantly, for the atheist, relativistic. If there are no common set of values, then there can be no common set of interpretations of consequence. You may wish for something to occur, I may not: so there's no way to "determine the degree of moral equivalence" since there's no fixed number everyone can agree to.

Besides, if you reject the idea of God, what are you doing moralizing about "moral equivalence" anyway? You're engaged in hypocrisy since there can be meaningful charge of "moral equivalance!" levelled from a stance of subjective morals.

You then moved on to play word games with the Old Testament quote about homosexuality. (“God is saying this act is detestable “in general.”…, “In the verse, God says, of homosexual acts, “I abhorred them.”). I will grant you that depending on the translation, the actual meaning of the passages will vary greatly

Look, if I told you my friend hates shrimp, would that be the same as telling you *I* hated shrimp? Of course not. To you, this is some kind of "word game". To me, that seems like an obvious difference.

I will grant you that depending on the translation, the actual meaning of the passages will vary greatly ([url])

The article you link to argues that various terms used in the bible might not refer to homosexuality. For some terms, I think that's a entirely respectable argument.

But you apparently didn't notice that none of those terms are in question here. The key meanings ("lie with a man", "for you") here didn't originate from an English mistranslation, but is present in the original Hebrew. (An easy way to notice this is true is to notice that Jews universally understand these verses to mean this.)

Yet, with all of this, it still does not ignore a key contradiction in Christian mythology...

It "still does not ignore a key contradiction"? Wouldn't that mean it pays attention to "a key contradiction"??? It sounds like you're trying harder to sound sophisticated than to be clear.

The problem with #3 [abiding by some of the OT Law] is that someone has to choose which passages are relevant...

Quite true! But then you again jump to a fallacious conclusion:

... which creates a morality of convenience.

First, you're being amusing here. Who picks your own beliefs? Do you get them all from one text or consistent body of teaching? If not, then you certainly guilty of the charge you are apparently obsessed with levelling against others.

If you pick your own ethical rules, then your own ethics must also be a "morality of convenience". And if that's bad, well, it's bad for you too.

As it is, most Christians don't think they get to pick and choose which passages to buy into. Some of us do attempt to take it as it is, and believe verses whether they're convenience or not.

For example, like any guy, I'd love to get laid more often. I find women quite attractive, and there are some who would be quite willing. So why, then, don't I just get rid of the verses which I think tell me not to do that?

Oh yes, this is impossible in your universe. The only possibility can be hypocrisy. So here we are again with another false dilemma: you cannot accept the idea that people might actually try to obey God as revealed through the bible, including the teachings of the New Testament. The only option you will admit is hypocrisy.

The Church or its constituents abide and emphasis the passages that are convenient and/or support their position and ignore the rest. That stance is somewhat hypocritical.

Someone does have to determine which meanings apply. If you're a Christian, you believe Jesus's promise that he'll help those who want to learn:

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth [i.e. the 'Holy Spirit'], comes, he will guide you into all truth." (John 16:12)

If you believe Jesus was a liar or crazy, then of course you must reject such a possibility out of hand.

Catholics believe this process happens though the Roman Catholic church, Protestants believe God guides individuals who seek him. Either way, the individual ultimately ends up with final responsibility.

But this doesn't justify your accusation of hypocrisy. Just because a group or individual "interprets" something doesn't automatically prove that they always do so out of bad faith, or that a given interpretation can be so easily dismissed.

For example, it's rather convenient for me to "interpret" my paycheck as meaning a certain sum, the one apparently written on the front of it, should be paid to me by the company I have worked for. And certainly, I have every financial motive for saying so!

But does that prove my interpretation is wrong or hypocritical? Your argument is, again, a fallacy. It is possible for people attempt to be honest.

It's not enough just to come out, guns blazing, and accusing everyone but yourself of bad faith and dishonesty. First, you must prove error, then you can get into finding the motives, assuming there were any, behind the error.

And, other than some hand-waving at another page, one talking about some other terms not being used here, I don't see anything here where you've done the hard work of showing how I'm distorting the bible's teaching when I show you that Christians are simply no longer subject to the "old covenant" God made with the Jews at Mt. Sinai.

You again claim the church is just "ignoring" what they don't like. But I've already answered each rule you've given, explaining why it does or does not apply.

Finally, where did you get the idea that it was "convenient", in this culture, to oppose a popular poster-child like homosexuality??? How do we benefit? Is there some rich billionare handing out paychecks for suggesting that perhaps some forms of sexual expression aren't as healthy as others?

Christians are simply taught in the bible that committed heterosexual monogamous marriage is the ideal, and that anything outside that model -- whether homosexual or heterosexual -- is less than God's ideal:

"Haven't you read," [Jesus] replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one." (Matthew 19:4-6)

I can't speak for every other Christian, Thomas, but as a person who has gay friends, and attempts to be honest, to me that passage simply seems to show that God's created ideal was "male and female", in a committed relationship. There are plenty of reasons for me to desire otherwise, but I'm not a person to believes reality is infinitely malleable. I can take the biblical Jesus or leave him, but I can't just rewrite him whenever I feel like it.

>>> Christians that don’t like the horrid implications in the prose of the Old Testament will generally fall back on the argument that a new covenant was struck with the coming Jesus...

>>Ummm... that's a bit like arguing: "Dairy farmers who don't like the implication that milk is a deadly poison will generally fall back on the argument that studies show it can be consumed without obvious visible harm."

> Huh? A relevant analogy would be that priests claim that there is nothing in the Bible (specifically the New Testament) forbidding sex with children and even if there might be...

No, you're missing what I'm saying: You seemed to be claiming that the belief in a "New Covenant" is merely a pretext to get rid of "horrid" verses Christians "don't like".

In that response, I point out the "New Covenant" was something Jesus himself, and his first followers, appear to have believed in. You are again accusing people of bad faith where there is no need to.

This sentiment of hating the OT is a fairly modern one. Yet the idea of the "New Covenant" obsoleting the old one is indeed supported by the bible, and has existed, apparently, from the start of Christian belief. So it's absurd to argue it was somehow manufactured for the purpose you allege it is being used.

Perhaps the bible really does teach a New Covenant. Perhaps Christians don't believe in it, as you imply, because they "don't like" "horrid" OT verses, but rather because they are simply honestly convinced of it as they find that the inescapable meaining of the text.

Finally, even your allegations of bad motive aren't making sense: One minute, you accuse Christians of being dishonest and (apparently) creating this idea of "New Covenant" to dismiss "horrid" verses in the OT that they "don't like", the next minute, you accuse them of wanting those verses to say what they do.

Well, which is it?

And look at the motives you impute in each case: If those verses don't apply (your claim), then we're dishonest liars, acting in our self interest. But we were also dishonest liars for having created, by convenient misinterpretation, the very meanings you just accused us of trying to dismiss!

The hilarious thing about being a Christian is that you quickly discover that there is no stick with which you won't be beaten. :-) You get used to being accused of exact opposite charges.

... preists claim that there is nothing in the Bible (specifically the New Testament) forbidding sex with children and even if there might be...

For the record, sex with children is indeed condemned in the New Testament.

...even if there might be, it does not matter since they are forgiven anyway.

The bible teaches sin does matter, and is wrong and should be avoided, even if it can be forgiven when we admit it:

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace [i.e. forgiveness] may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? .... Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God... offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. (Romans 6:1-2,12-13)

So the bible teaches that sin DOES matter, and that it is wrong to say it doesn't matter because it is possible to be forgiven. The argument is explicitly contradicted in the New Testament.

Now there are some "Christians" who would dismiss the above, and agree with your accusations about Christians, saying that it doesn't matter what we do, sexually, because of God's grace. They also openly admit that they "pick and choose" which verses apply to them. But these tend to be "liberal" Christians, not the conservative Christians you probably imagine you dislike so much.

>> I agree that it's best to argue against Christians from the bible. It would seem a very effective way of disproving their arguments, if one could demonstrate that the bible teaches the exact opposite of what they say...

> You mean like “Do unto others” yet killing heretics or perhaps endorsing the slave trade or the initial endorsement of Hitler’s extermination of the Jews? You mean like that?

Since we were discussing theology and doctrine (read all above context) I was meant this was the best way to disprove their theological arguments. But yes, since you bring that up, that's also a good line of attack to try. But it has certain vulnerabilities...

You're certainly right to accuse individual Christians of hypocrisy: it's one the hazards which come with espousing any morals at all: inevitably, people (including Christians) are flawed and end up on the wrong sides of all kinds of issues.

(1) So what's better? To have no morals at all so that you avoid the risk of sometimes being found deficient by the standards you hold?

Example: Clearly, you seem to think it's a good idea to love others as yourself, since here you are, accusing others of not having done so. Okay, let's say they're all guilty. So no where are you? Do you always love others as yourself? Thought so. Me neither.

(2) There's this problem of comparative harm. Yes, Christians have done some of the things you accuse them of. So what? Humans in general do bad things. Every system of thought has flawed adherants, or people who have perverted it. If "perfection" or "no bad people" is your demand, then every philosophy on earth stands convincted of guilt.

So let's compare, for example, Christianity to those who have acted from a secular, atheistic outlook. While there are many wonderful sceptics and atheists, it must be admitted that the harm caused by atheistic ideologies has far outstripped the harm imputed to those of Christian outlook.

Yes, there were religious wars. Yes indeed. But added up, they don't begin to touch death toll brought about by attempts to make societies live by secular ideologies. The body count hovers around one hundred million.

Yes, indeed, I agree: it's wrong to stone a "heretic" to death! But it's just as wrong to send a Christian or political dissedent to Siberia (or a Chinese Laogai camp) for their beliefs.

So if we were going to judge an outlook by the harm caused by it's adherants, as I've said before, the overwhelming evidence seems to show that someone with a secular outlook has no stones to throw, regarding this issue.

So, do you have any answer about the tremendous harm cause by the kind of people who, as you do, liked to attack Christianity?

Or if you claim their behavior doesn't taint your own, then why won't you apply that rule to your opponents?

(3) On the legitimate issues you mention, there are Christians on both sides of the coin. It's true there were some Christians who attempted to justify slavery. But if you study the lives of the main people who acted to get it outlawed, you'll soon discover they were also Christians.

It's a bit like accusing all Democrats of bad taste because some dress badly. Well, some do, but some don't. You have to show some kind of trend dominates. You don't bother to do this, of course.

(3) About half the charges you make are simply false:

You mean like creating multi-billion dollar organizations around a person that taught of living meagerly and devoting your life to your God and the afterlife that awaits instead of material wealth?

Televangelists don't teach their followers the goodness of "living meagerly". Instead they do exactly what you advocate: they tell their followers to pursue "material wealth", just as they are doing. Often, they use their own wealth as example!

So you have a bit more in common with televangelists, apparently, than you thought. You both think the ideal is pursuit of wealth, not "treasure in heaven"!

But the bible doesn't teach this at all, so most of us Christians wish they would stop confusing people. So if you change your mind, and decide to dislike their pro-materialist preaching, you'll find that there are lots of Christians with you, wishing such people would go away and stop exploiting their viewers.

You mean contradictions such as denying sick people medicine...

You're referring to Scientology or "Christian Science", the latter being a new-age flavored, non-Christian cult/sect. Christians in general have nothing against medicine.

And it's not a "contradiction" in the slightest if that's what their religion actually teaches. You are just emoting here, and not making any sense.

Should I go on?

You could if you wanted to. But so what? Again, of course some Christians do bad things. So what? What is the overall impact compared to, say those who hold secular or atheistic beliefs?

And even if you accuse Christians of not obeying the bible, again, so what? Then you're implicitly agreeing with the bible on those points. I'd be right there with you, agreeing with you. Christians, because they are humans, are flawed and don't always do the right thing.

Is that your big relevation here?

“Useful for teaching, rubuking, correcting and training” would imply that it still applies.

When you say "applies" you mean that people have to follow every letter of the law. But, tellingly, Paul doesn't say that at all here. Read his other teachings (you just quoted some) if you think that was how he understood it. He clearly didn't.

A thing can be "useful" without being the law you have to follow (which is what you're implying, again, here). It's useful to study English, Norse, and Roman law, from which ours descended, but that doesn't mean we're subject to it!

You yourself said that the new covenant makes the old covenant obsolete. That implies that the Old Testament is no longer applicable.

That means gentile (non-Jewish) Christians don't have to live under each rule in the Old Testament. It doesn't mean, as I have again stated before, that the OT is utterly ignored.

You yourself said that the new covenant makes the old covenant obsolete.... Yet, there are numerous passages such as the ones above that state just the opposite.

I said it was obsolete as a covenant. I believe Paul was quite honest when he taught that it had many other uses.

Okay, so you'll force me to take them one by one:

"The law and the prophets were until John [the Baptist]: since that time the kingdom of heaven is preached." Luke 16:16

Right. The Law and the Prophets were UNTIL John. Since that time, this new thing, the "Kingdom of Heaven" is being preached. This passages is indicating a *change* from the law and prophets.

"Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ .... We are delivered from the law, that being dead." Romans 7:4,6

Right. Christians are delievered from the power of "Law" (Torah, the OT covenant), and are "dead" to that old set of rules. Again, exactly what I've been telling you.

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law." Galatians 5:18

Right. Christians are not under "Law" (Torah). Again, not a contradiction: you seem intent on making my point for me.

"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Ephesians 2:15

Yes, once again, Christians are not under law.

To exasperate your problem, there are numerous passages in the Bible which essentially state that the Old covenant is eternally binding.

On those who accept Jesus's death? I've never seen such verses. You're welcomed to produce them, if you can. Otherwise, you've got no leg to stand on here.

The relativist will say that the newer, more palatable ones are relevant...

Sigh. Thomas, you should really get your terms straight. A relativist is a person who thinks there are NO objective morals, just whatever a person wants to think. It has nothing to do with the age of the ethical code one adopts.

You can be a relativist and favor Greek philosophy (older) over the New Testament (newer). Camille Paglia, for example. On the other hand, neither Christians (who believe in the NT) nor Jews (who believe only in the OT) are relativists.

If the Old Testament states to kill a child if they dishonor their parents, are Christians obligated to obey? Most Christians would clearly not feel they are obligated but that creates the contradiction of enforcing some of the elements of the Old Testament and ignoring the rest...

Thomas: are you dense? Did you even read my reply to you?

Try to understand this: From a Christian point view, think of the Old Testament as England. Think of the New Testament as the US. Imagine someone is born in England, but later repatriates to the US.

With me so far?

The reason the person in the US (New Testament) doesn't have to obey a law which only applies in England is NOT because they "feel they are obligated", but because it doesn't apply to them. They are under a different contract or legal system now.

I already gave you the example where Jesus discouraged people from stoning a woman who sinned. So when Christians don't follow the rules of Jewish law for stoning people, it's because (a) they're under a "New Covenant" made by Jesus, and (b) Jesus, in the bible, set the example of not stoning people for sin.

It's not because they just "pick and choose". That may be how you choose your own morals (and if that makes someone, as you repeatedly insist, a hypocrite, then I would suggest your housecleaning begin at home), but it isn't the set of rules they follow.

Actually, three as I stated above. Abide, Ignore or Pick... [which OT rules]

No, you continue to ignore the option I gave you: a new set of law which overlaps at points. The person in the US isn't "picking and choosing" which UK laws to follow. They are simply following a new set of rules, ones they didn't make up, themselves!

Yet according to your line of thought, unless you're under English law, then you must be under anarchy. Please try to understand the idea that there might be other sets of laws out there. I know this is very difficult for you to comprehend, but I believe you can understand if you put your mind to it.

Since that covers all possibilities, this is no more a false dilemma...

Um, I just pointed out a fourth. So yes, it's still a false dilemma.

This entire line of thinking is irrelevant since Christian mythology is not based on location unlike secular legislation.

Wow. You are completely unable to see the application because it involved -- tada! -- changing geographical locations!

Are you just really that dense, or you deliberately being obstinate about a rather simple point?

Thomas, ALL analogies are only SIMILAR to the idea they are trying to explain. If you are unable to comprehend analogies because they contain irrelevant differences, then I will kindly ask you leave my blog, as there is nothing that can be communicated to you (since all human learning involves analogies), and I am thus clearly wasting my time.

Otherwise, giving you the benefit of the doubt for the moment...

If that was too complicated for you, then try this: I work in an office. I have a particular job, with a given set of rules for how to do my work. Then, one day, my company changes my job description, or gives me a promotion.

Now, I still work in the same office, in the same place, at the same desk, but now have a different set of rules for what to do, though some of those rules might be the same as before.

If I obeyed those new rules, would I be guilty of "picking and choosing" which old rules I wanted to obey? In your world, yes. In my world, no. Since it's clear you can't possibly be convinced of this point, we'll just have to disagree and move on. There is no point in wasting any more time on it.

>> Again, I'm not trying to fault you for not knowing my own 'religion'. There are all kinds of things I don't know too.

> You ad hominem attack aside, I happen to know quite a bit about Christianity having studied it for many years.

I just stated I was NOT attacking you, and admitted that I also don't know things. But to you, for some reason, that's an attack?

An "ad homen" fallacy is where you argue your opponent is wrong because he has bad character. I'm not doing that: I point out the exact logical and biblical reasons you're wrong, even naming each fallacy as you employ it.

But based on those many errors (for example, you seemed to think Christianity was opposed to modern medicine! duh! Who do you think started this idea called "hopitals"? Why do you think so many hospitals have Christian names?), it does appear to me that you don't know much about it. I'm sorry if that stings your pride or something.

My post is merely to provide you insight into the incorrect assumption that the Bible and Christian dogma is not rife with contradictions.

Your post addressed nothing of the sort. You quoted a number of verses which agreed with my position that Christians aren't under law, and then cited only one verse which said "all scripture" (including the OT) was "useful" to support your position.

But no-where in that verse does it actually say that Christians must obey the OT Law. And you overlook the fact it was written by the same guy who was famous for teaching Christians aren't under OT Law, which also suggests you are misunderstanding the author's intent.

So the burden seems to be on you, to demonstrate how this one verse proves that all Christians need to be subject to OT law, when nothing in the text or context, as far as I can see, seems to suggest that, and there is plenty to suggest otherwise.

Otherwise, if you can't do that, we'll just again have to disagree: You believe the only possible meaning of "useful" means "obedience to Law" and that Paul simply just like stating opposites -- and I believe, in the bible as well as in life, that you can learn a lot from a set of laws without necessarily having to live under them and that Paul's philosophy admitted an idea of "useful" beyond the only one you will admit.

Okay then, I guess there's nothing more to do with that either.

Finally, I will remind you that the topic wasn't "Christian dogma is rife with contradiction", the topic was whether God's injuction for Jews to avoid Shrimp was binding on Christians, taken within the biblical context.

As I mentioned at the opening, you've not advanced this arguement at all, but rather abandoned it. Even if all your charges -- Christian are hypocrites, and only "pick and choose", etc. -- are all true, you are still saying nothing about what an honest interpretation of the Old Testament would be, in light of the teachings of the New, and why my initial statements were false.

More in the next post...

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on November 20, 2005 05:15 PM

A few more...

Most modern Christians have a rather mixed-up view of what is actually in the Bible on which their faith is based.

I already agreed with you on this point. But I also mentioned that most antagonists appear to be even more ignorant. Worse, many can't even seem to understand how little they know, even when you correct them on point after point.

Often, they're just go copy their arguments off some other page, without even doing minimal research to see if those arguments make sense.

You had argued that the best people to debate Christians would be former Christians. I pointed out, in practice, most opponents of Christianity were not, in fact, former Christians.

In non-response, you change the question to a different one...

Thomas Paine? Thomas Jefferson? I would have to do some research on the people you mention here, but I would bet a majority of them grew up in Christian households.

Thomas, please try to understand I'm NOT trying to be cruel, but you need to stop hanging around the people who have so grossly mis-educated you. These examples are mind-blowingly bad.

First, "They might have grown up in a Christian house" is not a way of answering the charge that most atheists have never been Christians. It might be an interesting point, but it is irrelevant to the question as to whether most who oppose it have learned it for themselves, or instead just absorbed general (and often mistaken) notions of what it is -- as you seem to have.

Next, you name "Thomas Jefferson", as an opponent of Christianity? Oh my! Sure, he distrusted the clergy (so do many Catholics) but that didn't make him an enemy of Christianity.

Jefferson used our government buildings as churches, and procured Federal money to support missionary work among the Indians. True, he disagree with orthodox Christianity on some points (Jesus's divinity), but he was hardly a public enemy of it.

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. [1]

These, my friend, are historical facts that have been kept from you. The site I'm excerpting here is the Library of Congress.

Then you suggest Thomas Paine. Well, at least you named a vocal opponent of Christianity! (He was also a vocal opponent of atheism.) But his parents were Quakers, not Christians -- and lapsed Quakers at that!

So, um, no luck there.

Also this one:

The Bible was not written like the Constitution as a “living document” that is subject to change as times change and that is its core flaw.

First, I absolutely I agree it's good to be able to change a document which is about government based on the needs of the time: government has to worry about lots of things like industry, science, and technology which are always changing.

But the bible is a book, first and foremost, about God and morality. What you see as a "flaw" I see as it's main strength.

First, who wants to worship a God which mutates with public opinion? Atheists are fond of accusing Christians of having created God in man's image, but perhaps that's just projection: apparently, some people (such as yourself, apparently) would prefer a God, or a universal sense of truth, to change based on the public mood today.

Second, ignoring the whole God issue, do we really want morals to be whatever the majority (or those in power) decide they should be today? I don't, and I don't believe reality works that way. You end up with the Soviet Union, where morals are determine by the needs of the many, or the needs of the strong, and bloody piles of corpses freezing in Volga River and Siberia. Your philosophy is of no use in preventing such a moral and human catastrophe.

In fact, it was the prime ingredient in causing it.

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on November 20, 2005 08:30 PM

In this last post, I was going to address the bits about Isaiah, but I see that "dopderbeck" seems to have taken the issue on.

But I couldn't help but get a laugh out of this:

He predicted that Babylon... will be inhabited by satyrs and dragons (Isaiah 13:21-22).

Dude, this is hilarious stuff! The terms in question are simply Hebrew terms which refer to animals, terms which we are unsure of the exact translation today. One term means "howling beast", another means variously "dragon" or "serpent"!

So the purveyors of this 'failed prophecy' report of course chose the least charitable interpretation they could find of these words, making it appear the bible was predicting the magical animals [from Greek mythology, at that!] -- rather than being a poetic indication of the city's future uninhabited (by humans, duh!) status.

And strangely, as an example of "failed" prophecy, you've picked a rather poor specimen! Babylon -- the ancient city referred to, that is -- remains uninhabited to this day, unlike the usual habit of rebuilding a new city on the destroyed foundations of the old one. Very unusal for such an important city.

Given the whole "dragon" distortion, ask yourself: Are these (a) people who are inclined to try to figure out the most sensible interpretation of a phrase, regardless of their own prejudices, or (b) people who have pre-chosen their answer, and will selectively screen out disconfirming data?

Next, about Isaiah 53, you seemed to have read only the first verse. Um, Isaiah 53 is a chapter, not just one verse. And the bit about "not being believed" applies to the subject of the story ("we esteemed him not"), not the one whom is telling is.

And "dopderbeck" is right on this: the bit about "Immanuel" is truly basic: it's simply a symbolic term literally translated as "God with us", just as "Wonderful Counsellor" and the others Isaiah adds here are clearly titles, not personal names.

Interestingly, all these names indicate a future "child" who will play a multi-facted role, a person who can be given titles only appropriate to God ("Everlasting Father", "Mighy God"), yet born as a child. Recall that modern Jews say there's no such concept in the Tanakh (Old Testament). But there it is: a man being given names and attributes only fitting for God himself. And you've chosen it as an example of a "failed" prophecy! Yep, one so failed that the early church quoted it like crazy.

Next, as "dopderbeck" pointed out, a good chunk of the prophecy in Isaiah describes a time of coming rule by a figure called the "messiah".

In the case of the alliance you cite, it refers to a time when "there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border" and (apparently) speak the same language as the people of Israel. Other passages in Isaiah imply this relationship between Egypt and Israel will happen, as "dopderbeck" stated correctly, after a cataclysmic intervention by God. It also uses the term "in that day" which is usually a reference to a far, far future time.

So in context, there's no particular reason to even expect this to have happened by now.

Hey, if you already reject the idea that God exists -- much less could intervene on Earth as described in the bible -- then of course, you must already reject any prophecies which follow from that, and which seem to apply to that time.

But that's circular reasoning: Since God doesn't exist, these things can never happen in the future, and thus this prophecy must be evidence that the bible is false. Since the bible is false, there's no particular evidence God exists, or that the bible is true.

I'll readily admit it isn't yet evidence FOR the bible either. I'd argue for a third state, called "Pending" into which to put clearly-future prophecies.

The bit about "Assyria no longer exists" is also telling: it isn't just sufficient for a prophet to describe a region he's talking about in terms of the country of his own day. (Or the future: who knows, that region could again be joined into a single nation. Saddam sure tried.)

So we're totally not open to the idea we could just look up a historical geographic name to see the modern equivalent! No, each prophet, in order to make prophechies we might entertain to be true, MUST write down all the future names each region will acquire before we'll consider further what he might be trying to say. We can't possibly just accept his contemporary name for the region!

Dude, that's just too funny.

So I guess you've answered my question:

(1) You seem very interested in believing purported evidence for failed prophecy, and subject it to incredibly low standards, such as not even examining the surrounding passages (Immanuel...) to see if the argument being made to you makes sense in context.

(2) You seem very uninterested in any evidence for fulfilled prophecy, even when it include a myriad of specific details.

A extremely low standard is apparently demanded for things you're inclinded to believe, and an extremely high standard must be proved for things you do not wish to believe.

Well, good enough then. I guess we're done!

I bid you well, and wish you a good day.

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on November 20, 2005 09:13 PM

You don’t seem to get it.

I don't seem to get it? I beg to differ. Looks like you're trying to make a different and new argument each time. Looks like I get it all too well, and you're scurrying for cover.

The first time, you said it was all or neither.

I pointed out there was a new covenant with some common prohibitions.

The second time, you said it was only all, neither, or getting to pick whatever we felt like.

I argued the bible taught there was a new, binding covenant, not merely a personal moral free-for-all.

This time, you try to claim that common laws -- in the sense of prohibitions against the same action -- aren't really "common" (or don't "overlap", since you fixate on that term despite the fact I only mentioned it in passing) but two entirely different laws which just co-incidentally prohibit the same behavior.

Sure, whatever. So what?

This is not a false dilemma but rather two sides of a coin and you keep wanting to chose both and neither side...

Huh? No, I've always pointed out there are simply two covenants.

That idea would make you wrong, if true, of course, so you have to phrase it in the bizarre fashion you choose above to keep yourself from realizing you're wrong about a very. simple. point.

Let’s look at your US and UK example. If you are US citizen, NONE of the UK laws apply in US jurisdiction. Not one.... Rather there is merely commonality in the laws of the two countries (e.g. both countries coincidentally have a law against murder).

Ah yes, "commonality in the laws". Sure, whatever term you like. No wonder you accuse opponents of playing "word games" -- projection galore!

You're making a rather fine semantic point here one which rests on BOTH (a) a distinction without a difference (as they say) and (b) even if granted, an unrelated artifact of the chosen analogy.

Look, you're welcomed to say that if you're under two justidictions they there are really "two laws" against murder, not one. Great, then I can respond by saying there are really "two laws" against murder in the bible, one spelled out in Torah, one taught by the Holy Spirit under grace. But they have the same effect in that Christians are forbidden from murdering.

There, wasn't that fun?

Of course, as I point out, this is an artifact of the (already admittedly imperfect) analogy chosen. Look at the job example again: I work for the same guy as before. In role 1, I fill out TPS reports and timesheets. In role 2, I now fill out XYZ reports and timesheets. Was "filling out timesheets" TWO or ONE required duties?

I'd say one, and I suspect 99% of the population would also. But I'm sure, since you have some bizarre theological point riding on it, you will be forced to say they're two completely different duties which are just "co-incidentally" the same. Or that my second job is just an "ammendation" of my first job. Even if it's otherwise unrelated.

Whatever. As if that made any difference in the actions required of me.

:-)

Oh, and it's hilarious to see that you assert: "both countries coincidentally have a law against murder!" Wow! What are the odds of that happening! It wouldn't be because one was patterned on the other, and adopted some of the same laws. No, hey, it's just a big co-incidence.

Or maybe, because one came before the other, we must now admit that the US Constitution is actualy properly termed an "ammendment" to UK law, huh? (Wow, I'm sure Constitutional scholars will be interested to hear that!)

However, you then turn around and say that the laws “overlap.” “Overlap” in legal terms means something completely different than your US/UK analogy.

(A) Just for a lark, I'd love to see which "legal terms" justify this definition.

(B) Then use the job example. Thomas, please understand these are analogies. If I told you a story about a boy who cried wolf, you would now be getting in deep about how often wolves actually menace children during daylight hours. Missing. The. Point.

Unless specifically stated otherwise, signors of an amended contract are bound by the terms of the original contract.

So you've decided that "New Covenant" in the bible is more properly translated as "Ammended Version of Existing Covenant?" Again, I've already given you another analogy if you don't like this one.

Otherwise...

(A) Please provide biblical justification for your stance. I would think that the bible using the word "new" implies fairly sufficiently that it's substantially different, even if some of the same actions are prohibited.

(B) If a contract is ammended, then it is ammended for everyone at once. But that's not so here: the bible teaches Old Covenant still applies to everyone who attempts to keep it, and they will be judged by those standards. (Romans 2:12, Gal 3:10, Gal 5:3)

Loosely put, that means if a person considers himself righteous because of his actions, then God will indeed judge him by them, and the person will be found deficient. If the person admits he or she sins, and accepts forgiveness through Jesus, then the law of grace, the new covenant, applies.

(C) You're full of it, legally. I'm currently up to my nose in software contract negotiations. The last contract specified a number of terms and expired. We're now getting a second contract from the same company. Some of the requirements are the same in that we will be doing the same things as before for them. And some of the requirement deliverables... are different!

And no, it's not an ammended contract. It's a new contract. But, from the point of view of we who have to provide the goods, some of the actions we'll take will be just the same as before. (And some won't.)

But of course, you have a point riding on this. You can't possibly admit error, so the contract must somehow, magically, be viewed as an ammendation of the first one. Against all common sense or reason. Or the "common" deliverables must be really be found to be "not common" because of a legal intangible. Or perhaps the "same" actions are really "not the same"... As though any of that would change anything in terms of the visible actions required from the participants.

Because the world of contract law, or national law, or even job titles and roles -- all these must be twisted beyond any semblance of common sense and human recognition so that you can avoid admitting the obvious.

First, there are statements in the Bible which say nothing of this “overlap” concept.

What kind of stupid construction is this? There are items on a McDonald's menu which say nothing about fries. For example, the entry about the milkshake -- that says nothing about fries.

Who cares if SOME say nothing about it? Some DO imply an "overlap" "commonality" or "co-incidental smilarly" (or whatever you'd prefer). That's the point being made.

Look, you can call it whatever you like. It's funny that you accuse me of "playing word games" because that's precisely what you're doing.

Look, let's say that the New Testament forbids some behavior: say, idolatry. (Galatians 5:20) Now let's let's say that the same practice is also forbidden in the Old Testament. (Exodous 20:3-4, as the first of 10 commandments.)

Now, whatever you would like to call that situation please note that it gives evidence that there are actions forbidden in both the Old and New Covenants -- however you'd like to refer to that situation ("overlap", "co-incidence", whatever) -- and demonstrates my original point: that just because the "Old Covenant" is obsolete for Christians (or whatever you'd like to call that) it doesn't mean EACH ACTION PROHIBITED BY THE OLD COVENANT suddenly is just fine and dandy behavior under the New Covenant.

As stated in the article at the top of the page.

Okay? Was that simple enough for you?

Undoubtedly, no.

AFAIK, there is nothing in the NT about ox goring thus Christians are still bound by this law if you buy into the “overlap” theory.

Huh? I didn't say all the laws were the same. In fact, I explicitly stated otherwise. When you say there is "some overlap" (or whatever term you'd prefer), it also means there is some "non-overlap" (or, again whatever term you'd prefer).

Let me attempt to be clear, yet again: There are some actions which were required in the Old Covenant which are NOT required under the New Covenant. For example: kosher laws. (Acts 11:8-9)

So, in case you're getting confused by all this enormous complexity:

1. Some actions are required under both.
2. Some actions are prohibited under both.
3. Some actions are required under only one.
4. Some actions are prohibited under only one.

However you would like to sum up that situation, have at it.

Thus, we come back the Shrimp issue. If there is nothing in the NT which specifically addresses shrimp...

Um, listen up, bright one: I don't know if you noticed but there was nothing in the OT which specifically addressed shrimp either.

(There are plenty of verses which show Kosher laws don't apply, but hey, those are invisible to you when I quote them because your brain won't allow them to exist, so why bother doing it again?)

So, um, Mr. "My Opponent is Playing Word Games", why don't you get on the horn, contact the team over at God Hates Shrimp team, and let them know that in your universe, there are no such things as generalizations and categories.

Or does that rule only apply when you're posting to my blog?

(Why should I expect otherwise?)

If you believe that the new completely trumps the old, then you are also saying that the Ten Commandments is no longer applicable.

What do you mean by "completely trumps"? Again, I have explained repeatedly that there are some actions prohibited in the Old which are also prohibited in the New....

Ach, I refuse to answer this question yet again. I have explained repeatedly that some action prohibited by one contract/law/job/country/covenant could also be prohibited by/under another.

You refuse, repeatedly, to acknowledge that the point has even been made. I've been more than patient. Please read the comment rules for hints as to why you have now been banned.

Thomas, I think you've made your position amply clear: Intellectually, on this point anyway, you're pathologically dishonest. There is no such thing as having a meaningful exchange because you can't even address a simple point such as whether the New Testament teaches a concept like the "New Covenant", and whether certain actions formerly prohibited under Jewish Law could also be prohibited under it.

Though you frustate me, I also pity you.

Underneath it all, you've probably got some issue with God, some hangup that is forcing you to make such bizarre and fallacious assertions.

You know, the bible refers to some people as "blind". I used to think it meant something ookie and spiritual, but, as time passes, I now understand it means their simple, ordinary rational powers have ceased to function, and they cannot comprehend even certain very simple points, because the ego itself is being held hostage, and in order to preserve itself, rationality ... must ... go.

So you are blind even to simple statements such as "Some things prohibited under one law are also prohibited under another." It must mean all. It must mean none. It must mean everthing but what it most obviously would seem to mean to the average reader.

I've tried, Thomas, but there's nothing I can do for you. Having assessed that, but knowing you're probably now fixated on "proving" yourself here, by endlessly posting the same irrational assertions you've posted over and over before, I've got to let you go.

Best to you.

Posted by: Tim (Random Observations) on November 21, 2005 01:56 AM

I love it when people say they know the Bible but then somehow miss that this particular controversy was setteled way back in Apostolic times; in fact it was the first big controversy in Christianity. Paul called Christian Jews who wanted Gentile Christians to follow Mosaic law judaizers. The first Christian council as recorded in Acts was held to discuss this very subject. Paul wrote Galatians to address this very subject. And the clear position of the Christian church is that, in Jesus' own words, He didn't abolish the Law, He fulfilled it, and therefore it has no claim on a Christian. The Law by the way referes to the ceremonial law, or the Mosaic law, and not for instance to the Ten Commandments.

Posted by: Kevin Murphy on November 21, 2005 07:52 AM

Hmm, the diseased ramblings of the deluded.

Thomas, Tim broke matters down shotgun-style. You have an agenda that probably stems from a personal issue.

You continued to post even after being banned. Repeating the same tired nonsense that was ALREADY disproven does not constitute a valid rebuttal.

Posted by: Tom S. on November 23, 2005 08:58 PM