During my interview with the Christian Police Officer, Dave Tatsak, on Episode 14 of Dogma Debate, he repeatedly referenced the 'New Covenant' when I brought up one of the chilling reminders of Old Testament beatings, stonings, or animal and human sacrifices.
I've heard this argument several times, and it basically goes like this: "Since Jesus came and died for us, we no longer have to go through that, but we are now under the perfect law of liberty in the New Testament."
So, As Officer Dave said those things, and mentioned "that was the Old Covenant" I let it pass without challenge. My mistake.
A very sharp listener by the name of Andrea caught it, and wrote me this morning and said "Where in the Bible does it talk about the New Covenant?"
I am familiar with the mention of the "law of liberty" in James 2:12, but couldn't really send her there for an answer, because it is only a mention of the term, not a definition of terms for this mysterious "New Covenant" that Christians often quote.
It made me realize, I never asked that question, and I didn't know the answer. So this question is for Officer Dave Tatsak, and any other New Testament Christian Apologist:
Where in the New Testament does it say that we are to no longer follow the Old Testament, no longer stone misbehaving children, and no longer kill gays? Moreover, the Old Testament is very specific for laws concerning behavior, worship, sacrifice, and even foods that we can and can't eat on certain days.
So, if we are under a New Covenant, what are the terms and conditions of this new contract we are supposed to live by, how do we know which parts of the Old Testament are still valid, vs.which ones to ignore, and where can we find the scriptures that prove it?
43 comments:
I have to break this into two parts. Hi Dave. I'm not a New Testament Christian Apologist, sorry. (get it... not an apologist.. sorry... I crack myself up). I'm an atheist, but I think I can answer this having read the Bible several times and studied it extensively, I was raised as a Jew. I would say that you're asking the wrong question. The question isn't where it says that there's a new covenant in the New Testament, the question is, what was the nature of the original covenant and the Mitzvot (the body of Mosaic Law). First, there are a total of 613 commandments (no, there aren't ten). These laws can be broken down into different categories. For example, they can be positive (248 of them) or negative (365 of them). Can they be performed anywhere outside of the Land of Israel (26 of the laws cannot). Are the laws dependent on a specific time in history (it's estimated that of the 613 laws only 271 of them can be performed, or not performed, today given the lack of the Temple, splitting those that leaves 77 positive and 194 negative can actually be observed today). Another factor is who the laws are written for, you'll notice pretty much every chapter starts with a line similar to "Go tell the Israelites", that's because these rules, in general, were really meant for Jews at the time, not for the world at large. This is a common misconception among Christians, because they think that this was written for gentiles as well when it wasn't. This leads them to pick the ones they think apply as sins versus the ones which don't matter, which is kind of annoying. The Torah actually affirms this clearly in Deut 33 (verse 4 specifically), which is the blessing that Moses pronounced to the Israelites before he died ("... the law that Moses gave us, the possession of the assembly of Jacob"). Another important distinction would be the concept of self-sacrifice. For example, there are no positive laws which mandate that someone sacrifice their life rather than perform the action. Let me give you an example. In Deut 15:7-8 it is commanded that Israelites help out poor Israelites (this is in the context of forgiving debts every seven years). However, if I held a gun to your head and told you that you could not feed and clothe other (assuming you were there at the time, and you were a Jew) Israelites who were poor, you would not be breaking the rules if you didn't. That doesn't mean that you can just ignore the positive laws, you can still be put to death (if you are an Israelite to whom Moses delivered the Law). An example would be the positive commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy or honor your Mother and Father. If I held a gun to your head and told you to make me a turkey pot pie on Saturday (before sundown) you would actually be required to do it so long as you believe the threat is credible, that's something you may not pick up in the Old Testament itself, but it's clarified extensively in the Talmud, which is essentially 1) an oral history of the Torah and 2) a bunch of Rabbis through many years arguing about what the Torah. OF the negative commandments, only three types fall under the category of "rules that you have to follow even if it means dying". Those types (or subcategories) are Murder, Idolatry and Forbidden Sexual Relations. So if I hold a gun to your head and tell you to have sex with your Aunt by blood, you would be violating the law if you had sex with her rather than eating a bullet. You would also be required to take the death option (or allow others to die) if I told you to kill someone, or to create/worship a golden calf. You often talk about homosexuality as a sin meriting (according the Old Testament) being put to death, this isn't quite a cut and dry as you've indicated... (cont)
(cont) First, Reform Judaism doesn't actually hold the view that, for example, Lev 18:22 and 20:13 means homosexuality in general. Reform Rabbis generally hold the view that this law involves the concept of possession, otherwise (they argue), it would just say "If a man has sexual relations with a man". Rather, it adds "...as one does with a woman" (if you read the other laws regarding sexual relations, none of them say things like "Don't have sex with your Mother as you would with your Wife" or "Don't have sex with animals as you would have sex with a person"). They tend to reason that the issue here is less about killing homosexuals and more about killing men who subject men to being "as a woman" (in other words, treating a guy as if they were a possession as the Old Testament requires that men do with their Wives). They argue that the homosexual act itself isn't sinful, nor are homosexual relationships, just emulating the male/female relationship itself. I don't know if this really makes sense, but that's their take. Still other arguments are that it's really discussing male temple prostitution. This is plausible, for a more in depth video on this go to Youtube and search for “THE TRUTH ABOUT LEVITICUS AND HOMOSEXUALITY” (it should be the first non-paid video, created by user by “broncopolykidgrad”). In any case, going back to covenants ... the reason I say that you're asking the wrong question, is that nothing is the New Testament implies there is a "New Covenant" because the Old Testament was never written for anyone but the ancient Israelites. Stuff that Christians say that Jesus said are also kind of ridiculous. Typically they say something like "Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" (from the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5). They use this, and other verses, to kind of pick whatever rules they think are important. I do think you did well by pointing out the incoherent nonsense of the Passover story, the concept of sacrificing your child (but getting them back again) and the question of how a good God could create the universe knowing bad things would happen (like talking serpents and such). I'm just writing my thoughts on how the laws worked in the Torah so someone doesn't blindside you with this stuff some time, I think the misunderstanding of the Torah is widespread and if people had a clue how they actually worked or more importantly, how they really don't apply to anyone but a very small subset of people in history, I think that we'd have much better conversations about all this.
Excellent points, Michael.
This is the best explanation I've seen of how Jews also spin the verses to fit with modern sociological norms.
It seems that Christians aren't the only ones who feel the need to supplement "God's Word" with more books from "Man's Word" to make "God's Word" make sense.
Also, they can have whatever 'view' they want, and they can call themselves Reformed, or Orthodox, and we can have different 'interpretations,'and hash out what they hope to be 'metaphorical.'
But the book says what it says.
Besides, not every biblical mention of homosexuality refers to the terms "as he would lay with a woman."
Romans 1:27 specifically mentions "Men committed indecent acts with other men," and then verse 32 says they are worthy of death along with many other sinners.
The point of this post was really to address the Christians, as you alluded to, who claim that since Jesus came, so many of these things don't apply, as if that gets them out of having to explain away the horrific commands of death by their Lord.
I've read that from C.S. Lewis. I've heard that in church. I've been told that in my debates.
It's not in the Bible. That's my challenge.
Where's this so-called reset button Christians are allowed to hit?
Ironically, I feel the need to play devil's advocate on a few issues, others I'm not so inclined. First, I would argue that Romans 1 can mean whatever people want it to mean. It doesn't specify what an "indecent act" is. While it's fair to assume (as many do) that it means "gay act" it could also be referring to something like temple prostitution. There are vague references to Sodom but arguably the crime (contrary to popular belief) wasn't actually that the people in the town were gay, they were (according to the story) just immoral and wanted to rape the angels (apparently raping angels is bad, who knew?). One could argue that men committing indecent acts with other men was referring to things that aren't consensual. I guess my question is, is your issue that the words "new covenant" don't actually appear in the New Testament, or are you suggesting that the text doesn't imply that there is a new covenant? If the former, I would suggest it's a poor position (not because you're wrong, just because that's a standard most people don't hold to other documents). It would be like saying there's no separation of church of state because the Constitution doesn't actually use that phrase, it's implied in the first amendment. If the latter I can't necessarily disagree, but it gives Christians some wiggle room. They may argue that their "reset button" would be the line I referred to earlier (Matthew 5, I came to fulfill the law not abolish it, etc). That's why Dave (the cop) kept saying that Jesus was a sacrifice, to fulfill the law. To me the whole sacrifice thing is really silly (I don't mean to talk down to Christians or Jews here, but...). I'm not suggesting I have some kind of cornerstone on knowledge above god or anything, but what would be the point? You did a good job during the interview (I thought) of pointing this out. First (this was my favorite part of the interview), it isn't much of a sacrifice for god to send his kid (who is actually him), then he gets killed, and then he becomes a zombie (minus the brain eating) and goes back to heaven. God didn't really sacrifice anything. Oddly, the story of the Passover is essentially the same. The Jews had to "sacrifice" a lame, but then they get to eat it? Wow, that's a terrible sacrifice (I always find when I'm feeling particularly masochistic I crave lamb chops)! In any case, I try to approach this subject even handed and fairly, but at the end of the day my primary issue is responsibility. The universe is an impartial ref (at least in so much that the outcome doesn't really matter, the universe keeps doing it's thing), but the idea that God (eternal or not) creates the universe and knows everything that will happen demolishes the concept of free will (in any sense). It's not just that god would know what we were doing, it's that we are (by corollary) created to do it, unequivocally. That being the case, all things aren't permissible without god (as Dostoyevsky implied in "The Brothers Karamozov"), all things that happen only happen because they are permitted by god. The god of the Old Testament is terrible and cruel (as Christopher Hitchens said, he was a celestial North Korean dictator), but on top of that completely unchanging AND he created the evil that we allegedly suffer for today. It's truly sick, wrong and honestly, completely indefensible. In any case, I hope you don't take my arguments as an indication that I think that you're wrong. I find that arguing from the other side is like playing chess and trying to see what you are doing through their eyes (I find when I do this I don't seem nearly as crafty as when I don't). Regardless, the goal is to strengthen your game. Take care.
Wow man, you should really try tapping 'enter' now and then. This is almost blinding.
I appreciate you playing devil's advocate for Jesus, but there's still no real answer here.
Only speculation, and twisting verses to fit an argument. You know that, because you're atheist.
The simple fact is, one sentence of Jesus 'fulfilling the law' doesn't mean Christians get out of following the Old Testament.
Malachi 3:6 says that God doesn't change. If he wanted gays dead then, he wants them dead now. He wants people killed for working on his holy day now, because he wanted it then. He doesn't change.
Christians saying that we are now under a new covenant, is a cop-out because they can't deal with the horrid commandments and the orders of death. That's the truth behind this.
I don't know that I'm really playing devil's advocate for Jesus or religion in general (in my defense, I did call Jesus a zombie, and I think I referred to the whole concept of god-man-zombie/lamb-passover sacrifice paradigm as silly). I just call it like I see it, and I tend to see it as a compliment when someone argues with me, simply because I learn best when I'm arguing. My point in the original post was that one can still argue that the laws in the Old Testament were given specifically to one group of people, at one time in history. This is actually where Christians go completely off base. They should just say that the Old Testament doesn't apply to them because they aren't Jews living in the desert a few thousand years ago (even though historically there is no evidence whatsoever that the ancient Israelites were actually held captive by Egypt or traveled across all of Sinai other than the Bible... it's highly unlikely that 600,000 families, which would equate to around 2 million people, traveled across that distance without leaving a shred of evidence other than their oral tradition... but I digress). This stance would mean that god didn't change (he didn't want gays dead, he just wanted gay Jews wandering the desert a few thousand years ago dead, but he's cool with gay people now). The reason they don't is that they want to hold onto a few of the rules. What they should be doing, rather than arguing that the Old Testament is still somehow relevant, is simply say that those rules don't apply to them (meaning Christians, collectively). The problem is that if you just take what Jesus said, you can't 1) control women's reproductive rights 2) tell gay people where to put their junk 3) control people politically. Jews should also adopt this, at least generally. This is the picking an choosing, and at the end of the day it's about controlling people. Think about the story in Acts 4 regarding Ananias and Sapphira. At the risk of being accused of Poe's Law (that I'm stating an extreme position so it's indistinguishable from parody), this story is completely ignored by religious conservatives (of all persuasions), because it generally supports the concept of communism (and killing people for not practicing communism). There are very few things that are more at odds with the Bible in general than capitalism. The Year of Jubilee, release of debts after seven years, Jesus saying that rich people are screwed (unequivocally), that Christians should give all their possessions to the poor, etc all indicate that god (both Old and New Testament) would be kind of a pinko. How often do you hear them talk about it? Never. You can't control all the money if you point out all the parts of the Bible which indicate that you shouldn't be controlling money. Sheesh, here I go, rambling (and apparently irritating you, my apologies).
I really felt this interview helped formalise a metaphor in my mind. People who go to the bible and believe it is immovably correct have to try and fit the facts about the world around it. Unfortunately, with this great immovable and correct object right in the middle such an exercise results in botch jobs. You have to stretch facts to and beyond breaking point. The classic example is creationists who won't accept evolution as it is not biblical.
Of course the other way (you referred to it several times in the interview as 'the third option') is to not accept the bible as true. Do this, and the facts fall and make their own pattern on their own - backing each other up and relying only on reality.
I also want to add that Dave the Cop's outlook on his life is very depressing. The world is a fallen place? We're all deprived? His ability to do his job and live his life is only improved because of a two hour talk to a pastor?
What a horrible way to view things.
Pretty scary that Dave the Cop admits he will follow (whatever he thinks are) God's laws, instead of US laws whenever there is a conflict.
Does he see any problem with the fact that there is very little agreement on what exactly God's laws are (even w/in Christianity)? And that this would lead to different cops enforcing entirely different laws, in different ways? How would he feel about having Sharia Law cops in his town?
Also, as a Cop, didn't he take an oath to uphold the law of the land? Was he lying when he swore to that (breaking God's commandment against lying)?
PS: Another great show! And I loved those short "man on the street" interviews with Christians that Jim did. I hope you keep featuring more of those!
Dave, I think you are mistaken about the use of human blood to signal the angel of death to "pass over" Jewish houses.
I am definitely no Bible expert, but I think it's clear that the "blood" in Exodus 12:13 is referring back to the lambs blood of Exodus 12:7.
And anyway, your interpretation makes no sense: you can't use the blood of the first born killed by the angel of death... as a signal to the angel of death not to kill your first born! It'd be too late!
Of course, this doesn't really make the story of Passover any less horrific and evil.
A small matter about when you brought up the fact that God made the sun on the fourth day...
I checked this in my bible and it clearly states "And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day."
Later - on the same page (!) - it says "And God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars"
So lets get this straight, an actual Day, as in Daylight, was made before the sun? And the moon is a source of light in and of itself?
This is the first page and already the bible fails on so many levels. And people can honestly read this without noticing these things? It's pathetic.
The Bible doesn't say anything clearly, it's translated from a different language (in this case a language didn't have both verb tense and aspect as English does). Think about that for a second, if the Bible is "God's Word" then it shouldn't be translated because meanings, idioms, etc get lost in translation. At least Islam has the Koran which purists say shouldn't be translated because it would lose it's meaning. The problem with the loosey-goosey nature of the ancient Hebrew is that you can say things like "well, in CONTEXT that actually means..." or "the translation really means.." and in some cases you can even be right, but that means that it's not accurate to begin with. A perfect example is the "virgin" birth. The reason that the New Testament has the story of a virgin giving birth is that the "prophecy" in Isaiah was mistranslated from Hebrew to Greek as "virgin" when in fact it was 1) symbolism and 2) really "young woman" (it didn't actually specify virginity). How screwed up is that, Christians believe something that was transliterated poorly and created a myth from it. It's kind of amazing, but sad that we live in this century and still hear about it as if it's true.
Another atheist here to put in my 2 cents. This question of a New Covenant has been argued about since the beginning of Christianity. It is rooted in the close association between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus was (if he was real) a Jew and his apostles were Jews. For centuries it was believed that the Jewish God had given the Jewish Laws to the Jewish people who knew they were Jews because they followed the Jewish law (were circumcised, kept kosher, kept the Sabbath, etc. Jesus and his followers changed this. Jesus sent his followers out to preach to the Gentiles and emphasized belief more than following laws.
How do you know someone is a Christian? According to the Gospels (Matthew 22:37-38, Mark 12:30, and Luke 10:27) “Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.” The great commandment is not circumcision, or keeping Sabbath, or sacrificing, but love of God. This would allow anyone to become a Christian, if only they believed. There were arguments in early Christianity about whether one needed to be a Jew in order to follow Jesus, but this view lost out to the view of Paul. (An extreme example of this is Marcion of Sinope who, in the 2nd century argued that there were 2 gods: a bad, Old Testament, Jewish god and a good, New Testament, Christian god and that everything Jewish should be ignored).
Paul was the most successful and outspoken apostle of Jesus and his letter to the Galatians lays out his thoughts on Jewish law and Christians. Paul had started many churches and when he left, some were led “astray” by people who emphasized salvation through Jewish law and this is Paul’s response (see Galations chapter 3): “So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian (Galatians 3:24-5).”
Wikipedia has an entry for New Covenant that goes through many of the arguments and passages that support the view of a New Covenant.
Of course, this being the Bible, there are other passages that muddle this, such as Jesus saying “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am come not to destroy, but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17).” And, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven . . . (Matthew 5:19). On the one hand you do not have to follow the commandments, only believe, but on the other hand do not break even the least of the commandments. It is clear that many of the Jewish laws are meant for the Jews to follow, and Jesus has little interest in them. Jesus also specifically endorses other laws that are found in the Old Testament. However, he is silent on others—does this mean that Christians don’t have to follow them or not? It isn’t made clear in the Bible. So as usual, people are left to choose what they believe is right.
Small excerpt from wiki under the search 'Cafeteria Christian' ;; "There is some basis for selectiveness in the New Testament— according to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 (as well as some of Paul's letters; see Antinomianism in the New Testament), Gentile Christians are not obliged to keep the entire Old Testament Law. However, the Council did retain the prohibitions against eating meat containing blood, or meat of animals not properly slain, and against "fornication" and "idolatry",[5] which is commonly called the Apostolic Decree and is still observed by the Greek Orthodox.[6]"
IIRC, the supposed Jesus said something about keeping the old laws and not changing them a jot nor tittle.. but I guess most Christians are more Pauline than Christ-following without knowing it anyway.
It sounds like nothing more or less than cherry-picking. There can be no doubt the assembly of the bible in it's current form was by definition, cherry-picked and political.
Such a shame that God didn't 'inspire' someone back then to write versions of the bible directly into modern and future languages and seal it away somewhere. That's what a truly omniscient God would do!
This officer has sacrificed his humanity, for reasons I don't understand, he is following some nonsense written by others yet defending it like it was his own. Very sad, actually. He had very few answers to some basic questions and I wish Smalley would have said something along the lines like "I'm afraid we'll have to terminate this interview if you continue to have no answers..."
he went to criswell college
what would you expect.
Malichi 3:6 also brings up another interesting problem for the christian.
Clearly there are verses all over the bible that show that god has emotions. But what are emotions if not change? If god becomes angry, then his emotional state changed; ergo he changed. If god is pleased, his emotional state changed and again he changed.
This cop is extremely dishonest, wont believe in evolution without a time machine, but will "with all his heart" (whatever the F that means) believes in what is essetially the longest game of telephone in the history of mankind. Coincidently walks into his pastors office one day and walks out a changed man, good thing he didnt walk into a crack house he could have gotten the same results that is to completly disconnect himself from reality.
funny how heavens tech support guy sounds mysteriously the the leader of north korea
not to mention he has a name of a saudia but works in India.
Officer Dave doesn't actually seem to know a whole lot about his beliefs. He just parrots talking point passages and circular, nonsensical "reasons". The covenant thing was a complete dodge, it's a fabrication to make excuses. He just makes up stuff like every other believer. The only real premise in discussion with a believer is they are liars first. No matter what they say, they start out with a lie.
First, I have to say I applaud Officer Dave for being on the show. That takes guts. I don't call into Christian shows because I have no such courage (but also because I don't care to convert anyone to atheism), so I appreciate his willingness to talk about this stuff. My only question for him is: Dave, you've been asked about whether or not you would enforce God's law over civil law and you've said God's law, but you've indicated you don't believe that would ever be a choice you need to make. Let me give you an example where I believe it would, in real life. Currently the law of the land (via act of Congress and Supreme Court ruling, it's called the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act) is that it's illegal to block people from entering an abortion clinic. The same day (but not at the same time), a similar protest is being held at your church and people are using the same exact actions (blocking, intimidating, etc) to keep people from entering their place of worship. The law I've referenced states clearly that the law is that it's illegal to block or intimidate people to prevent them from entering reproductive health clinics and places of worship equally. If you were ordered to stop people from preventing a pregnant woman from going into an abortion clinic, and you knew that by doing so this woman would go into the clinic and have an abortion, would you enforce this civil law the same exact way you would enforce it in front of your church? You would be helping facilitate an abortion (the prevention of which by blocking and intimidating in front of the clinic is illegal), I'm assuming you believe that abortion violates God's law (the debate about which I'm happy to have with anyone, the Bible doesn't actually say this in any way and arguably says the opposite).
Listening to the bonus audio, he is almost unbearable to listen to.
It scares me he is in a law enforcement position.
@40:00 officer dave
I would rather be in heaven than here.
OMFSM,
this guy is too much, around 58:00
DT-the bible has proved itself to be true over and over again in my walk with christ.
DS- how so
DT - "I wish I could give you example after example I would have to go back to my journal"
what you cant even remember one?
he doesnt know how bible prophecies
arrogant prick
@66:00 "I know gods character"
Also the 10 commandments were in the old testament, so by the "new covenant" idea we can safely ignore those too.
Christians will say NO! to that idea, at which point it just comes back to what it always has, believers picking and choosing paragraphs that suit their personal prejudices.
This is why the guys on the atheist experience call the bible "The big book of multiple choice".
I cannot disagree that there is a certain level of arrogance that comes with one claiming to "know" any properties of a metaphysical being. But calling Dave a "prick" doesn't help the situation, nor does it further our cause of changing the negative stigma of atheism.
Is he theologically wrong, to the point of discrimination at times? Yes. Unfortunately, he is. I made it clear that I disagree with him.
But Dave is genuinely a nice person, even though he is misguided in his understanding of biology, evolution, and equal rights. Insulting the opposition is not going to get us anywhere, and will instead, become detrimental to our movement.
Please choose your words more carefully.
Ok I could have left out the prick comment.
However you cannot continue to let him off the hook by making excuses for him saying he is a genuinely a nice person. I hear a guy full of hate and woeful ignorance that is perfectly content with that because he thinks it is his gods will.
He hides behind his bible to judge people convincing himself that its god that disproves of "sinful" behavior and not him. All the while insulting our intelligence by trying to convice us of the overlord in the sky that has a threat of eternal torture hanging over our heads if we dont believe.
I believe he is a lost cause.
I would also like to add, I am a reasonable enough person to concede it is possible there is a god and by that I mean a more advanced physical being, no spritial BS What I will not accept is someone who claims to have reaced that conclusion based on the text in christian bible. Nor am I willing to accept that this advanced being interacts with our lives.
There are currently about 38k different sects of christanity , that cannot agree on what are supposed to be infallible words of god that info alone is enough to deny god. Without even getting into 1000s of other religions that exist and the 10s of thousands that have existed in the past.
Iron Chariots has a nice one page summary at "But that's the Old Testament":
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=But_that's_the_Old_Testament
While listening to the bonus show, I was thinking that Dave The Cop was just ignorant (meant in its proper sense) of how the scientific method and critical thinking works. But towards the end, when asked essentially "If you were given 100% evidence that the bible was wrong, would you reject the bible?" and he said he wouldn't, I really can't help but think that he is either brainwashed or actually mentally ill.
The whole bonus show was very scary and I could not believe how Dave The Cop could say some of the things he did and still consider himself correct.
The bible is full of inconsistencies - you cannot get past the first page without finding them. He just doesn't want to, or is incapable of, admitting to this.
The bonus show left me astonished.
So i think the important point that Mr. Smalley is trying to highlight with this question is, when was it made ok to just change the laws of religion to accomidate the needs of more people and who has the authority to do this? Religion its self was meant as more of a book of social guiedlines and to put the wandering mind to rest. after all we do have more important things to deal with than the mindless squabble of where we came from and how we should act, right? On another note i highly respect what Mr. Smalley is trying to do, free people from religous anarchy allowing them a broader herizon of thinking. most of the greats all were branded as crazy or devil worshippers because they dared to cross the line of what is taboo. remove these boundries and you have endless freedom to explore. Ms.Keylow2008
@David, I appreciate he is your friend and also that you have given us this discussion to listen to. Thanks. But saying this guy is a great person doesn't really work when we here him say un-great things. His particular "love the sinner, hate the sin" spiel is heinous. He came out and said "I don't hate gays" immediately after saying He hates who gay people are. Saying he loves them is simply an excuse to allow him to continue hating with a clear conscience.
I wouldn't call the guy a dick in an open debate either, frankly. But I also might start rethinking how great of a person he really is. I do think he preaches hate. I know folks who have been very diminished by this entirely conditional "unconditional love".
Thanks again, rrpostal.
*hear* ...Derp!
An instance where God's Law conflicts with Man's Law?
Easy. What is he going to do when he responds to a call for a disturbance at an abortion clinic? Some self-righteous sidewalk "counselor" is trying to force their way into the building, or is crossing some other line of proximity or harassment.
I really want to know. Personally, I think he'd probably do his job, and if it came right down to it he would not abandon his training and duty just because his conscience may disagree.
Hey Michael, I just wanted to say that you are absolutely a blas to read. Thanks for the info.
I don't see how Christians get around Matthew 5:17-20
“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. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
it says it clear as day
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets"
and
"but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven"
I think it’s interesting that Christianity centers around the crucifixion of Jesus and yet when asked what exactly it was that was sacrificed Officer Dave has no clue. It seems like it would be important. I guess people just want something to believe in so it absolves them from the responsibility of having to use judgment or compassion.
It looks like there are a few verses in the New Testament that reference a New Covenant, connected to Jesus' administration of the Last Supper:
http://www.openbible.info/topics/new_covenant
Hey David,
I think what you're looking for might be found in the letter to the Hebrews chapters 8 and 9, the second letter to Corinth chapter 3 and Mat 26:8/Mar 14:24/Luk 22:20.
Really, have none of you come across this: 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" (Lk 22:20). This was spoken by Jesus at the last supper. John's gospel then has quite a long discourse describing the terms of the new covenant (Jn 13:34-16:33). In summary it says, love God and love one another. What you also have to remember was that the old covenant was between God and the Jews. It is technically still binding on the Jews, as Jesus said, the Law does not pass away. The new covenant is binding on Christians. For those who are neither Christian nor Jew, the conscience provides a moral compass (Rom 2:14-16).
Post a Comment