Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-11-2015, 06:48 PM
RE: Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
(23-11-2015 06:39 PM)Keiya Wrote:  Its terms of morality. Since people who disbelieve have a subjective form of morality, which i argue that. Lets say i think its ok to cheat on my wife if it doesn't hurt her? Psychologically its bad for example, do they really mean that?

Is English a second language for you? I think you are trying to ask why psychological harm doesn't count but, if so, you'd have to show that somebody is claiming that it doesn't. If cheating on your wife would cause her psychological stress then that would be harm in my book.

Quote:Thats the problem i have with it. And thats why i think its just to have some form of judgement in terms of this with faith. Since it involves putting your trust in god and accept that he knows the best way for us.

So you don't want to have to think through all the hard questions, you'd rather just give up and follow somebody the dictates of somebody else. That's being intellectually lazy and it is sad to see anybody who feels that way. Being able to reason is probably our most unique ability and I hate seeing anybody just throw that away.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 06:52 PM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2015 06:56 PM by Keiya.)
RE: Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
Quote:Chas

Yes. Because its the idea to not accept god in your life. And thats usually comes with practices. But dont get me wrong. Its hypocritical if a religious is all awe when he/she doesn't practice what he/she believes. So they too are accountable if they dont follow what they preach.

Its terms of morality. Since people who disbelieve have a subjective form of morality, which i argue that. Lets say i think its ok to cheat on my wife if it doesn't hurt her? Psychologically its bad for example, do they really mean that?

Thats the problem i have with it. And thats why i think its just to have some form of judgement in terms of this with faith. Since it involves putting your trust in god and accept that he knows the best way for us.

Quote: If cheating on your wife would cause her psychological stress then that would be harm in my book.
True. But for the sake of argument, lets say there is a swinger couple, and she thinks its ok. But inside she doesnt feel its right. So she feels uncomfortable. Thats the idea of subjectiveness. It can open room to that stuff which i argue against. And that having absolute morality is a better way to live, to know you can trust someone because you are on the right path which god have made it to each other.
Quote:Please address the point of infinite punishment for the very finite 'crime' of disobeying.

Its easy. If you don't accept God, and try to live your way he wants you. Then you wont have eternal life. Which is the idea you get from the wrathful god in the old testament, he detest people living the life they want and not his.

Which is why god wants what is best for us, to have an objective judgement on good and evil. In this case, it is to do stuff human like, and not what god likes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 06:54 PM
RE: Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
(23-11-2015 06:52 PM)Keiya Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 06:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please address the point of infinite punishment for the very finite 'crime' of disobeying.

Its easy. If you don't accept God, and try to live your way he wants you. Then you wont have eternal life. Which is the idea you get from the wrathful god in the old testament, he detest people living the life they want and not his.

Which is why god wants what is best for us, to have an objective judgement on good and evil. In this case, it is to do stuff human like, and not what god likes.

You are still dodging the question. There IS eternal life for the person who disobeys but it is eternal torture. The "crime" is limited, the punishment is not. Please explain how that can ever be considered moral under any reasonable system.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 06:55 PM
RE: Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
"And here Jesus says he is god. Ok, this doesnt make any sense by itself... but
Mark 14:62

If you add Daniel in context to what he says
Daniel 7:13-14
Then he clearly says he is."
Firstly did you hear Jesus say that? And secondly splicing what Jesus said to what Daniel wrote 1000 years before isn't putting it in contest. look up context in any dictionary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 07:00 PM
RE: Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
(23-11-2015 06:54 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 06:52 PM)Keiya Wrote:  Its easy. If you don't accept God, and try to live your way he wants you. Then you wont have eternal life. Which is the idea you get from the wrathful god in the old testament, he detest people living the life they want and not his.

Which is why god wants what is best for us, to have an objective judgement on good and evil. In this case, it is to do stuff human like, and not what god likes.

You are still dodging the question. There IS eternal life for the person who disobeys but it is eternal torture. The "crime" is limited, the punishment is not. Please explain how that can ever be considered moral under any reasonable system.
No wait. You cannot disobey god. Believers are not excused from that. Like if i say i believe but i wont obey, then i am just being hypocritical. If you sin, in this case is best to gain knowledge or to get a better understanding on why its good to follow the path, that way you will avoid sinning. Its where the idea of struggle comes in. To struggle to be good and follow god's word.

Its true that you gain forgiveness by praying. But you shouldn't encourage sin etc. So for a believer rules are important to follow, otherwise its very hypocritical.
Quote: Firstly did you hear Jesus say that? And secondly splicing what Jesus said to what Daniel wrote 1000 years before isn't putting it in contest. look up context in any dictionary.
Its the wordings that makes it good. He says exactly what daniel says here. It is a reason why the high priest gets furious when hears it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 07:02 PM
RE: Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
So there are laws that are optional. Must be nice to have a religion that you can tailor to your own needs and desires. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Clockwork's post
23-11-2015, 07:04 PM
RE: Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
(23-11-2015 07:00 PM)Keiya Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 06:54 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You are still dodging the question. There IS eternal life for the person who disobeys but it is eternal torture. The "crime" is limited, the punishment is not. Please explain how that can ever be considered moral under any reasonable system.
No wait. You cannot disobey god. Believers are not excused from that. Like if i say i believe but i wont obey, then i am just being hypocritical. If you sin, in this case is best to gain knowledge or to get a better understanding on why its good to follow the path, that way you will avoid sinning. Its where the idea of struggle comes in. To struggle to be good and follow god's word.

Its true that you gain forgiveness by praying. But you shouldn't encourage sin etc. So for a believer rules are important to follow, otherwise its very hypocritical.

You realize that none of that makes any sense at all. I've read it a few times and have no clue what you are trying to say. All I am sure of is that you are still dodging the question on how infinite punishment can be warranted for a finite crime.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
23-11-2015, 07:07 PM
RE: Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
(23-11-2015 05:34 PM)Keiya Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 05:26 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  geez where to start?

Let's see

There is ZERO evidence for a god, so there's that.

Moses was not a real person, he was a fabrication character from older hero god types in ancient legends....education is the key to power, embrace some.

Not one person who EVER wrote of jesus, knew him. All stories, and people love to tell stories don't they?

But in reference to the mythical god who gave the never existed moses the ten commmandments, isn't it odd that rape, incest and slavery didn't make the top ten don't do it list, but covet not thy neighbor did....it is almost as if a man wrote those...oh wait, that is because they did.

The creator of god is man, made in our own image.

I am glad you asked this question.

I am very well aware from top scholars that the gospels are not an eyewitness account. But the fact that historians accept the stuff that is in it as historical facts like "Baptism" and "crucifixion" is crucial to it being true.

Even though they may be ultimately sceptic in terms of Jesus' teachings Tongue
So what if they were stories told by christians. That doesn't make them less reliable or true. In Paul's letters which is from him, you see stuff with the same message "Jesus was crucified, raised from the death" if this is not true then christianity as we know it has no ground to stand on. Which is why i believe it.

As for moses... i am well aware. But it doesn't matter in this case. Jesus could've just use theological point. This disproves more judaism than christianity since they need more ground in this case.

Well because rape and incest is wrong. War is awful though where awful stuff happens, its the consequences of it happening. Evil itself is wicked.
Also incest is condemned in leviticus. Even if some earlier have that part with Lot and his daughters.

God is a philosophical view, so i am not denying that people are ultimately sceptic of the idea. But what differs god from... fairytales as you would call it Tongue. Is that he is more central to our origin of life and behavior. Thats kinda what differs in practice, while fairytales are more just for amusements.
Quote: God was forced to have the women raped? He couldn't find a way to punish David that didn't involve harming innocent parties?
Everything is written this way to teach a theological point of view. Its not up to us to pick and choose Smile

A tradition of baptism, and the Crucifixion of a criminal named jesus do not give credence to the story of god, jesus's alleged demi god status, or any of the other obvious BS.

Actually eyewitness stories are the least reliable form of evidence. fact. Anything Paul says about jesus is irrelevant as he never met jesus.

You missed my point on the ten commandments...they are not an indication of what one would expect the top ten concerns of a universe/life creating deity would be, but exactly what a few members of a patriarchal society would think were pressing matters. This is where you apply critical analysis, reason and logic to decipher things.

Oh I agree god is a philosophical view, man created god in his own image.....but wait, aren't you a believer in god? god being, as you say, more central to our lives isn't the litmus test for validity, truthfulness, or necessity.

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 07:08 PM
RE: Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
(23-11-2015 07:04 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 07:00 PM)Keiya Wrote:  No wait. You cannot disobey god. Believers are not excused from that. Like if i say i believe but i wont obey, then i am just being hypocritical. If you sin, in this case is best to gain knowledge or to get a better understanding on why its good to follow the path, that way you will avoid sinning. Its where the idea of struggle comes in. To struggle to be good and follow god's word.

Its true that you gain forgiveness by praying. But you shouldn't encourage sin etc. So for a believer rules are important to follow, otherwise its very hypocritical.

You realize that none of that makes any sense at all. I've read it a few times and have no clue what you are trying to say. All I am sure of is that you are still dodging the question on how infinite punishment can be warranted for a finite crime.

You mean general crime.
Well it depends. But... thats the idea of evil comes in the picture. god doesn't want us to do that, yet humans do.

Its the idea, what evil you sow you shall reap. But if you try to be good then none of the bad stuff will happen to you. And neither people living on earth. And thats why i think heaven and hell is a just way to make a person go on the right path and not stray on its own way that might lead in darkness.

I am not sure if this answers it. But ask me if there are stuff i forgot to answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2015, 07:08 PM
RE: Atheism: Ignorance on "the old and new covenant"
(23-11-2015 07:00 PM)Keiya Wrote:  
(23-11-2015 06:54 PM)unfogged Wrote:  You are still dodging the question. There IS eternal life for the person who disobeys but it is eternal torture. The "crime" is limited, the punishment is not. Please explain how that can ever be considered moral under any reasonable system.
No wait. You cannot disobey god. Believers are not excused from that. Like if i say i believe but i wont obey, then i am just being hypocritical. If you sin, in this case is best to gain knowledge or to get a better understanding on why its good to follow the path, that way you will avoid sinning. Its where the idea of struggle comes in. To struggle to be good and follow god's word.

Its true that you gain forgiveness by praying. But you shouldn't encourage sin etc. So for a believer rules are important to follow, otherwise its very hypocritical.
Quote: Firstly did you hear Jesus say that? And secondly splicing what Jesus said to what Daniel wrote 1000 years before isn't putting it in contest. look up context in any dictionary.
Its the wordings that makes it good. He says exactly what daniel says here. It is a reason why the high priest gets furious when hears it.

Oh my...you do realize Daniel is pseudepigrapha right? Here, another crumb of knowledge for you from my research:

Traditionally ascribed to Daniel himself, modern scholarly consensus considers the book pseudonymous, the stories of the first half legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the Maccabean period (2nd century BCE). Its exclusion from the Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve) was probably because it appeared after the canon for those books had closed, and the dominant view among scholars is that Daniel is not in any case a prophetic book but an apocalypse.

Daniel is one of a large number of Jewish apocalypses, all of them pseudonymous. Although the entire book is traditionally ascribed to Daniel the seer, chapters 1–6 are in the voice of an anonymous narrator, except for chapter 4 which is in the form of a letter from king Nebuchadnezzar; only the second half (chapters 7–12) is presented by Daniel himself, introduced by the anonymous narrator in chapters 7 and 10. The real author/editor of Daniel was probably an educated Jew, knowledgeable in Greek learning, and of high standing in his own community. It is possible that the name of Daniel was chosen for the hero of the book because of his reputation as a wise seer in Hebrew tradition.

Daniel's exclusion from the Hebrew bible's canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BCE, suggests it was not known at that time, and the Wisdom of Sirach, from around 180 BCE, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted by the author of a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and was popular at Qumran beginning at much the same time, suggesting that it was known and revered from the middle of that century.

The actual historical setting of the book is clear from chapter 11, where the prophecy is accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author knows about Antiochus' two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BCE), the desecration of the Temple (the "abomination of desolation"), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he knows nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or the actual circumstances of the death of Antiochus in late 164. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BCE. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again. (Wiki)

Now the good stuff:

Today the consensus of scholars understands the whole book of Daniel to be put together by an author editor who first collected traditional stories in chapters 1-6 about the boy hero Daniel showing his courage during the persecutions of exile, and added to them the visions of chapters 7 – 12 that predicted the coming end of Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution. This kind of writing is called a Vaticinium ex eventu, a “prediction after the fact,” in which an author creates a character of long ago and puts into his mouth as predictions all the important events that have already happened right to the author’s own time and place. The language is often coded with symbolic animals and colors and dates to protect its message from the persecuting authorities. Its focus is not on predicting the future, but getting some meaning to present happenings by explaining the past events that led up to this terrible situation (Boadt 1984, p509).

To achieve such an important purpose, the authors mixed historical facts with older religious traditions and even pagan myths (Boadt 1984, p509).

It is important to note that the entire book claims to take place in the sixth century BC and to report a series of visions that come to the boy Daniel, who is remarkable for his great wisdom and his ability to receive divine revelation about the future. Very few scholars today, however, believe that this book originated in any way during the days of the Babylonian exile. And the ones who do usually have a very difficult time explaining the references to historical people and places which seem to be grossly wrong.

Darius the Mede is called the son of Xerxes in 5:31 and 9:11, both are wrong:

Darius was not a Mede but a Persian and the father of Xerxes. Belshazzar is called the king of Babylon in chapter 7 and the son of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 5. He was neither: he was only crown prince under his father Nabonidus.

In chapter 6 Cyrus succeeds Darius as King of the Persians. This too has history backward, since Cyrus was the founder of the Persian dynasty. The author seems to be quite confused about his facts and either lived long afterward or else intended the giant bloopers to warn the audience that what follows is not intended as history but a story of faith; similar to the approach of the book of Judith (Boadt 1984, p508).

Although the book of Daniel was supposed to have been written during the Babylonian exile by an official of King Nebuchadnezzar, modern scholars date its writings to the second century BCE. The reasons for this include:

• It is listed in the writings of the Jewish canon, rather than the Prophets. This indicates that Daniel was written after the collection of prophetic books had been closed (sometime after 300 B.C.E.)
• Parts of the book (2.4 – 7.28) were written in Aramaic, which suggest a later date when Aramaic had become the common language.
• The author of Daniel used Persian and Greek words that would not have been known to residents Babylon in the sixth century BCE.
• The book contains numerous historical inaccuracies when dealing with sixth century B.C.E. Babylonian history. Such mistakes would not have been made by an important official of King Nebuchadnezzar.
• Daniel is the only book in the Old Testament in which angels are given names (such as Gabriel in 8.16 and 9.21 and Michael and 10.13, 10.21, and 12.1). Elsewhere in the Bible, names for angels only appear in the Apocrypha and the New Testament.
• The absence of Daniel’s name in the list of Israel’s great men in Ecclesiasticus.
• Nebuchadrezzar is spelled Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel, which is the way the king’s name was spelled, under Greek influence, at a later time.
• In 2.2 the Kings wise men are called “Chaldeans.” But at the time of Nebuchadrezzar, “Chaldean” would have referred to the nationality. It was only centuries later that this word came to mean sorcerer or astrologer. (Wells 2013, p 1109)

Now do you see how these magical books were put together not by whom you think, not when you think and how they are allegorical writings based on parables, meant to drive a message and purposely designed in a hubris attempt to give them credibility.

Read, think, evolve.

Works cited:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel

Boadt, L. (1984) Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York. Paulist Press.

Wells, S. (2013) The skeptics annotated Bible. New York. SAB Books, LLC

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: