Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Cthulhu]

“And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was JOHN CENA"

[TempAcc]

I'm having a lot of trouble figuring out what you're trying to say.

Mosaic law is about exclusion, about establishing who is God's people and who isn't through the ritualized creation of boundaries.  Menstruating women are separate, sins are ritually cast out via scapegoat, customs associated with non-Yahweh tribes are prohibited and new customs like circumcision are created to distinguish Hebrews and Pagans, etc. etc.

Not quite, IMHO. I referred specifically to the ten commandments. While both protestants and many catholics refer to mosaic law as completely divine and thus immutable, I personally disagree with this. "Mosaic" law can be divided in two parts: The ten commandments, which is the core and most basic, generalistic part, supposedly dictated to Moses by God atop mount Sinai, and laws dictated by Moses himself either prior or after the ten commandments, that deal with far more specific cases and are the ones to actualy prescribe punishments to things, and are very much based around the jewish customs of the time, and aims to distance hebrews from pagan practices and customs by enforcing jewish customs while harshly punishing anything somewhat similar to pagan practices, and other things.

This last part is completely mutable and was only applicable at the time of Moses, and is incompatible to any different kind of society and culture. While Jesus talks of Moses in the new testament and says he received the law from God, he does not talk in specifics, which may mean he was referring to the ten commandments, which are divine in origin. Emphasis on "receive", meaning Moses did not create the law Jesus refers to, but rather received it from God. Jesus makes no references of other rules dictated by Moses. For example, while Moses prohibited his people from "summoning the dead" and "killing of a dangerous ox", Jesus says absolutely nothing of these things.  These other laws were interpretations of the ten commandments and other elaborations Moses had to make to keep shit togheder in a big group that was formed out of several different other groups, in order to quell internal conflict and manage things more easily. In order to legitimize his power, he probably claimed these rulings were divine in origin as well, but thats just my interpretation of it.

Such laws make sense in the context of Moses, but not outside of it. For example, "summoning/communicating the dead" was something often done by pagans as means of fortune telling, something which Moses outlawed in order to keep his people away from pagan beliefs and customs that they were often being exposed to. Yet, communicating with the dead is something thats done by Jesus and the apostles, and in a way, is done even today in the catholic church, by praying to saints and asking for their intervention. Does this mean the catholic church, Jesus and the apostles are all in the wrong? Not really, since Moses' specific rulings are not applicable to them.

[Cthulhu]

Do you have any specific citations to support this idea that the law isn't received (from the perspective of a believer of course, I don't think any of it was received)?  To me this sounds like you're making it say what you want to say.  You're taking a preconceived, non-Biblical notion (Only the ten commandments are divine and the rest is made up) and then using that notion to interpret scripture to fit your notion.

If I assume ahead of time that Mosaic law wasn't received then I guess if I'm pedantic about word choice Jesus didn't refer to it, but that's circular.  Mosaic law isn't divine, therefore Jesus didn't mention it, therefore it isn't divine. 

In any case, none of that actually says anything about what I said.  Mosaic law is still a system of exclusion and separation designed to create a clear boundary between the chosen people and the pagans.

[TempAcc]

Do you have any specific citations to support this idea that the law isn't received (from the perspective of a believer of course, I don't think any of it was received)?  To me this sounds like you're making it say what you want to say.  You're taking a preconceived, non-Biblical notion (Only the ten commandments are divine and the rest is made up) and then using that notion to interpret scripture to fit your notion.

If I assume ahead of time that Mosaic law wasn't received then I guess if I'm pedantic about word choice Jesus didn't refer to it, but that's circular.  Mosaic law isn't divine, therefore Jesus didn't mention it, therefore it isn't divine. 

In any case, none of that actually says anything about what I said.  Mosaic law is still a system of exclusion and separation designed to create a clear boundary between the chosen people and the pagans.

IMHO

Can anyone or anyone authority, in any way, make a statement of fact in regards to the contents bible or the true nature of mosaic law? My statement is as valid as yours. Your opinion of mosaic law (which apparently includes the ten commandments) says it is exclusory in function, while mine says only the non ~ten commandments~ part of it had that function. We're essentialy both saying what we think of it, altough I seem to be the only one not outright claiming to be right about all this.

[Rolan7]

Interesting, though even the ten commandments are a bit exclusionary.

The commandments are only for the Israelites, and the first four mainly describe differences between them and other people.  Particularly the first:
"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."
Only worship one god, have no idols, don't use his name in vain, and worship him on Sunday.

(How did people seriously get this into courtrooms and public areas)
Anyway those first four commandments basically keep ancient Israelites from sharing in the polytheistic faith of the time.

[That Wolf]

(removed)

[Rolepgeek]

Seriously That Wolf are you actually trying to be a caricature of militant atheism?

I'm still fairly well under the impression that a significant chunk of mosaic law was designed to codify the various things that were useful for not dying horribly. Like don't eat Shellfish, desert dwellers. It goes bad really fast, and will poison you.

[Cthulhu]

Do you have any specific citations to support this idea that the law isn't received (from the perspective of a believer of course, I don't think any of it was received)?  To me this sounds like you're making it say what you want to say.  You're taking a preconceived, non-Biblical notion (Only the ten commandments are divine and the rest is made up) and then using that notion to interpret scripture to fit your notion.

If I assume ahead of time that Mosaic law wasn't received then I guess if I'm pedantic about word choice Jesus didn't refer to it, but that's circular.  Mosaic law isn't divine, therefore Jesus didn't mention it, therefore it isn't divine. 

In any case, none of that actually says anything about what I said.  Mosaic law is still a system of exclusion and separation designed to create a clear boundary between the chosen people and the pagans.

IMHO

Can anyone or anyone authority, in any way, make a statement of fact in regards to the contents bible or the true nature of mosaic law? My statement is as valid as yours. Your opinion of mosaic law (which apparently includes the ten commandments) says it is exclusory in function, while mine says only the non ~ten commandments~ part of it had that function. We're essentialy both saying what we think of it, altough I seem to be the only one not outright claiming to be right about all this.

What you said wasn't an opinion though.  Yes, you can make fact statements about the contents of the Bible.  I'd call your thing a supposition, you're saying something that either is or isn't true with nothing to back it up.

(response to removed post removed)

[Frumple]

E: What was here no longer has need to be here.

[TempAcc]

@Cthulhu

When its specifically announced in the context of an opinion, as an opinion, its not an opinion :v?

(response to removed post removed)

[Graknorke]

Saying "The Bible says X thing" isn't an opinion, it's a fact statement. In the same sense as saying "In my opinion turtles are all orange" doesn't make it a more valid fact statement just because it's presented as an opinion.

[Toady One]

(cleaned a few posts, no need to respond to That Wolf anymore)

[Orange Wizard]

Not sure what happened since I just got out of bed, but thanks for cleaning that up, Toady.

[origamiscienceguy]

Out of curiosity, how many people here watch the amazing atheist?

[Frumple]

Don't even know what it is *thumbs up, shining smile*

... guessing youtube? Would be faintly surprised if there's actually a TV show by that title.