If it's a sin to break one of the Ten Commandments... [Archive]

Strafio

16-Feb-2006, 07:34 PM

Heyo. As some of you might've noticed, I've lately been grappling with the Christian concept of "sin". I think I've got a reasonable definition nailed:

It's to go against God's will.
God's will is outlined in the 10 commandments.
Sin must be punished.

I see the 10 commandments as more "this would be a good idea to stick to", rather than "keep them or else". The reason for this is that there are situations where breaking one of them is the right thing to do and it seems odd that "the right thing to do" would require punishment.

You shall have no other god's before me.
You shall not have any idols and bow and worship them.
You shall not take the name of the Lord in vain.
You shall keep the Sabbath holy.
Honour your father and mother.
You shall not murder. (some translations say kill, but God encouraged animal sacrifice so that can't be right)
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness.
You shall not covet. (that is wish to have what is someone elses.)

I can see atleast two that Jesus encouraged breaking in certain cases.
He encouraged people to follow him even if it was against the wishes of their parents. He healed someone on the Sabbath. Technically, the healing was a "holy" act, so potentially that was a reason why it wasn't a "sin". Jesus, however, gave a different reason: (apologies for lack of exact quotes, I don't have my bible to hand. :))

"The Sabbath was made for man rather than man for the Sabbath."

So he said that the laws of the sabbath were purely made for our benefit and where they were to hinder us then they should be ignored. Lastly, I think that it would be the right thing to do for someone to steal food for their starving family if they were out of all other options. Breaks a commandment but it's the right thing to do.

So this gives me the idea that the 10 Commandments are a set of guidelines that will tell us the right thing to do 99% of the time, and gives us a good basis for some standard morals. However, there is that 1% when breaking them is the right thing to do. I know I only gave examples for 3 of the commandments but I assume that all the commandments bear the same authority, and I've yet to see anything in the Bible that claims some of the commandments are more breakable than others.

Because they would be guidelines rather than laws then I'd compare them to "don't play with matches" warnings. So rather than "breaking the commandments must be punished!!" it woud be "breaking the commandments might lead you to a punishment". The same way a child who plays with matches might get burnt, but not must be burnt. If they played with matches but got away with it, would you then burn them to make sure they got what they had coming to them for breaking your rules? :Angel:

If there is a sin that must be punished, it can't be the breakage of the 10 commandments, right? :)

aikiMac

16-Feb-2006, 07:57 PM

As some of you might've noticed, I've lately been grappling with the Christian concept of "sin". I think I've got a reasonable definition nailed:

It's to go against God's will.
God's will is outlined in the 10 commandments.
Sin must be punished.
Sure, why not?

... and I've yet to see anything in the Bible that claims some of the commandments are more breakable than others.
"You shall have no other gods before me" is unbreakable.
This leads to the question of God's nature, and whether that Deity A is the biblical God or not, and the detail to which you have to understand God. Save these for another thread and another day.

So rather than "breaking the commandments must be punished!!" it woud be "breaking the commandments might lead you to a punishment".
...
If there is a sin that must be punished, it can't be the breakage of the 10 commandments, right?
In the literal sense, sure, as long as we're not talking about the one above. But one could very well say that you're wrong for the this reason: Jesus was innocent because Jesus did not break the commandments because the acts which Jesus did were not covered by the commandments. If the commandment does not speak to "doing X" then doing X is not a violation of the commandment. Your hypos about lying being permissible in certain situations, or whatever, could be restated as "doing X" when the commandment speaks of "doing Y."

Whatever.

Of course this is all moot if you have in fact broken one of the commandments, as opposed to just doing one of those Jesus things that you mentioned. Loopholes don't matter if they don't apply to your situation.

tekkengod

16-Feb-2006, 08:03 PM

Sure, why not?

"You shall have no other gods before me" is unbreakable.
This leads to the question of God's nature, and whether that Deity A is the biblical God or not, and the detail to which you have to understand God. Save these for another thread and another day.

In the literal sense, sure, as long as we're not talking about the one above. But one could very well say that you're wrong for the this reason: Jesus was innocent because Jesus did not break the commandments because the acts which Jesus did were not covered by the commandments. If the commandment does not speak to "doing X" then doing X is not a violation of the commandment. Your hypos about lying being permissible in certain situations, or whatever, could be restated as "doing X" when the commandment speaks of "doing Y."

Whatever.

Of course this is all moot if you have in fact broken one of the commandments, as opposed to just doing one of those Jesus things that you mentioned. Loopholes don't matter if they don't apply to your situation.

actually, for the sake of argument, thats a decent, direct answer for once.

Strafio

16-Feb-2006, 08:09 PM

Well technically, as the Pharisees were eager to point out, Jesus broke the commandments, which makes me think that they weren't necessarily unbreakable.
Hard to say about that first one... what is it to worship another god before him? (another topic like you said :))

So it seems to me that these commandments weren't unbreakable laws but basic guidelines from which people could found their own moral code. Like you said, I've done "wrong" things in my life but the fact they might've broken commandments doesn't make them punishable. So what does? What law is this "justice" based on?

Yama Tombo

16-Feb-2006, 08:11 PM

You shall not murder. (some translations say kill, but God encouraged animal sacrifice so that can't be right)

One thing I've seen so far is this.

Scarficing animals is ok in the bible, since animals are in subjection to man in christianity. You just can't kill animal for the sake of killing it or torturing. Scarfice is not the samething as torture. A scarfice was seen as giving God a gift. Torture is an insane desire to watch an animal die without purpose.

aikiMac

16-Feb-2006, 08:55 PM

Well technically, as the Pharisees were eager to point out, Jesus broke the commandments, which makes me think that they weren't necessarily unbreakable.
Are you sure about that?
Are you sure that Jesus broke the commandment that Moses wrote, as opposed to a subsequent rule that some pharisee-type later in time wrote?
;) Yes, it makes a difference.
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=772589&postcount=60 (and post 66 also)

Like you said, I've done "wrong" things in my life but the fact they might've broken commandments doesn't make them punishable.
I would rather commit to that other thing I said: "If the commandment does not speak to 'doing X' then doing X is not a violation of the commandment."

So what does [make my actions punishable]? What law is this "justice" based on?
Violation of God's actual moral laws?

Strafio

16-Feb-2006, 09:31 PM

Are you sure about that?
Are you sure that Jesus broke the commandment that Moses wrote, as opposed to a subsequent rule that some pharisee-type later in time wrote?
;) Yes, it makes a difference.
http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=772589&postcount=60 (and post 66 also)
Maybe. My real point is that Jesus didn't argue the same defense as you. He could have pointed at the actual scriptures and argued over the legalities, beaten them at their own game. His real answer was different though:

"Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath."

Implying that the commandment of the Sabbath atleast, was made purely for our benefit.

I would rather commit to that other thing I said: "If the commandment does not speak to 'doing X' then doing X is not a violation of the commandment."
Stealing is stealing, whether it's for right or for wrong.
So if someone was stealing for "good", it would still be breaking the commandment.

Violation of God's actual moral laws?
Fair enough. But how are we to know God's actual moral laws if they are not fully defined by the commandments? The commandments make a nice foundation for moral code and is sufficient for what I think they are there for. The thing is, if there's a law that demands punishment when broken, wouldn't God owe it to us to make it a little clearer and concise?

I get the feeling that we'll be using the word "conscience" over the next couple of posts! ;)

aikiMac

16-Feb-2006, 09:46 PM

Maybe. My real point is that Jesus didn't argue the same defense as you. He could have pointed at the actual scriptures and argued over the legalities, beaten them at their own game. His real answer was different though:

"Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath."

Implying that the commandment of the Sabbath atleast, was made purely for our benefit.
Oh, I don't know about that. Consider that Mark did not write chapter headings or verse markers. Begin at the beginning of Mark and read to the end of this story without stopping, and without consideration of the chapter break and the verse numbers. There's a very, very serious allegation being made by Jesus against "the teachers of the law."

Stealing is stealing, whether it's for right or for wrong.
So if someone was stealing for "good", it would still be breaking the commandment.
Who are you to say this about God's laws, eh? ;)

Fair enough. But how are we to know God's actual moral laws if they are not fully defined by the commandments?
You just told me that you know about the stealing law, and now you ask me to interpret it for you? :eek: ;)

I get the feeling that we'll be using the word "conscience" over the next couple of posts! ;)
I think so too.

Strafio

17-Feb-2006, 12:13 AM

Oh, I don't know about that. Consider that Mark did not write chapter headings or verse markers. Begin at the beginning of Mark and read to the end of this story without stopping, and without consideration of the chapter break and the verse numbers. There's a very, very serious allegation being made by Jesus against "the teachers of the law."
I won't access to my Bible for atleast a week, but I remember that he called them hypocrites and that they still did things like feed their donkeys and the like. Rather than "you break the Sabbath so I break it too :p" I think he used it to show how they were abusing the 10 commandments. Treating them like unbreakable laws rather than using them as they were intened. ;)

Tomorrow I'll take a look around my house, see if there's a Bible lying around for me to read up on Mark in. See if I can see this larger picture you're pointing to and whether it nullifies my point about what Jesus said.

Who are you to say this about God's laws, eh? ;)
I'm not convinced that it is God's law! :p

You just told me that you know about the stealing law, and now you ask me to interpret it for you? :eek: ;)
My current understanding of morals comes through experience. A lot of it was down to learning from my mistakes. Now if God truely wanted us to follow a flawless law, perhaps it would be a better idea to make it clear before we'd already gone and blown it? :)

I think that establishes that the 10 commandments on their are not enough to define God's will when it comes to our actions.

I think so too.
Then start quoting me one of Pauls letters to the Romans already! :p

Topher

17-Feb-2006, 12:50 AM

What about the other set of Ten Commandments?

aikiMac

17-Feb-2006, 04:04 AM

I won't access to my Bible for atl east a week, but I remember that he called them hypocrites and that they still did things like feed their donkeys and the like. Rather than "you break the Sabbath so I break it too :p" I think he used it to show how they were abusing the 10 commandments. Treating them like unbreakable laws rather than using them as they were intened. ;)
Something like that. :)

I mostly do not enjoy reading papers and books and such on the internet, but if you're one who doesn't mind, there's biblegateway.com

jroe52

17-Feb-2006, 06:14 AM

Thelistmaker

17-Feb-2006, 01:51 PM

I forget where in the Bible this comes from but Jesus was asked what to do if one had to break a commandment (or it might have been if two contradicted in a certain situation) he said follow the great commandment ‘love thy neighbor’

i.e. do the most loving thing

Strafio

17-Feb-2006, 02:32 PM

Something like that. :)

I mostly do not enjoy reading papers and books and such on the internet, but if you're one who doesn't mind, there's biblegateway.com
Not my medium of choice, but in case of emergencies... :)

So Jesus goes onto say that David was right to steal holy bread from the temple to feed himself and his friends when they were starving... talk of coincidence! :D

He also says that Sabbath was made for the benefit of man so should be treated as a suggestion rather than an unbreakable law. He says that the Pharisee's idea of the commandments being unbreakable was both flawed and hypocritical as they regularly broke them themselves.

And you seem to agree with me... :confused:
Thing is, this all supports my position that the commandments are for our benefit and that breaking them doesn't require punishment, just might to lead to "punishment" in the form of bad karma...
But I know you don't agree with that... or do you? :confused:

Unless...
a) Sin rests on the breakage of the first commandment
b) You believe that God's law that we "willingly" break comes from another source other than the 10 commandments...

Hmmmmm.... :)

Strafio

17-Feb-2006, 02:56 PM

Jroe, out of the multi millions of Christians in this world, George Bush is just one of them. He has as much relevance in this topic as Henry VIII, my Grandad, Isaac Newton, or any other Christian you'd like to randomly pick out of the history of the religion. That post was a little off topic if I might say so! :p

I forget where in the Bible this comes from but Jesus was asked what to do if one had to break a commandment (or it might have been if two contradicted in a certain situation) he said follow the great commandment ‘love thy neighbor’

i.e. do the most loving thing
There are a few passages where Jesus says that it's the most important commandment (apart from maybe loving God ;)) but it's not a rule as such. He's basically saying follow your heart and try your best, which is fine if God's law is what I think it is. If, however, there's a punishment for getting it wrong, then I'd see that as pretty poor advice and he'd've done better to go to the pharisees and hope that they could apply there lawyers skills to the scriptures to find the exact thing to be done to follow God's will.

aikiMac

17-Feb-2006, 09:33 PM

So Jesus goes onto say ...
Chap 1:1 and 1:24 assertion of his deity
Chap 1:21-27 authority of Jesus as a teacher of the OT is recognized
Chap 2:5 he claims the ability to forgive sins against God (which implies deity)
Chap 2:10-12 he demonstrates that he has the ability to forgive sins against God (back to that deity and authority thing)
Chap 2:13-17 he associates with and befriends "sinners" because God told him too (and impliedly, the teachers of God's law should have been doing the same, on behalf of the God whose message they allegedly taught)
Chap 2:19-20 he claims to have higher status than the teachers of the law, and John the Baptist (signficant assertion considering the culture!!!)

Now we get to your story about rubbing grain to make an afternoon snack. In Mark's gospel Jesus does not respond with citations to specific OT law concerning the sabbath, or to other rules the Pharisees had made for sabbath behavior. Matthew's gospel has these additional responses. Following after the above stories this omission carries a great accusation: "You Pharisees do not understand the law of your own forefathers that you pretend to teach!"

This claim of ignorance or misunderstanding would be weakened, not strengthened, by adding Matthew’s additional appeal to specific sabbath law. Chap 3 opens with another sabbath story that amplifies the assertion of ignorance/misunderstanding: the Pharisees were so screwed up that they didn't even want to do nice, loving, good things for people on the sabbath! You can almost hear the cry from Jesus, "How warped is that?!"

All said, Jesus' defense was, "I'm innocent of breaking the sabbath law but you clowns are unquestionably guilty."

Thing is, this all supports my position that the commandments are for our benefit and that breaking them doesn't require punishment, just might to lead to "punishment" in the form of bad karma.
But I know you don't agree with that... or do you? :confused:
What does it mean to "break" a commandment? Did Jesus break the sabbath law that came from God? I say no, because I do not believe you will find anything in the OT that says, "You shall not make a meal of raw grain on the sabbath" or "you shall not heal a man on the sabbath." I assert that such a rule cannot be found in the OT.

So, what does it mean to "break" a commandment?
Could it be that the Pharisees in Mark's gospel broke the law of God by denying healing on the sabbath? When I consider Mark 12:28-34, I think so. I honestly think so.

Unless...
a) Sin rests on the breakage of the first commandment
b) You believe that God's law that we "willingly" break comes from another source other than the 10 commandments.
(a) is definitely true, but remember that different church traditions number the commandments differently. By my numbering scheme #1 is "you shall have no other gods before me." Some people will call this the 2nd commandment. The "no other gods" part is the part that I mean to highlight for our purposes here.

I would say (b) is also true if we choose as the other source either or both of the "commandments" in Mark 12:28-34.

Topher

17-Feb-2006, 09:37 PM

What about the other set of Ten Commandments?
Wow hold up guys. Can't talk about the ten commandments without mentioning the other ten.

Strafio

18-Feb-2006, 01:05 AM

What other 10 Commandments?
We're specifically talking about in the Bible, right?

What does it mean to "break" a commandment? Did Jesus break the sabbath law that came from God? I say no, because I do not believe you will find anything in the OT that says, "You shall not make a meal of raw grain on the sabbath" or "you shall not heal a man on the sabbath." I assert that such a rule cannot be found in the OT.
Good point, but Jesus didn't say that.
He could have said so, pointed out there was nothing unholy about picking grain and healing people, but he didn't use that line of defense. What he did do was say that God made the Sabbath for man's benefit not man to be oppressed by the Sabbath's rules. He then compared it to David stealing holy bread from a temple. David's case was definately breaking a commandment, yet Jesus held that particular action as exemplary.

So, what does it mean to "break" a commandment?
Could it be that the Pharisees in Mark's gospel broke the law of God by denying healing on the sabbath? When I consider Mark 12:28-34, I think so. I honestly think so.
Yeah. Nitpicking at someone's actions and trying to find wrong in them is far from loving. To be fair to them, the two in that passage of Mark wasn't in the original ten... then again, they were in the OT somewhere and being supposed masters of the OT scriptures they should've known better! :D

(a) is definitely true, but remember that different church traditions number the commandments differently. By my numbering scheme #1 is "you shall have no other gods before me." Some people will call this the 2nd commandment. The "no other gods" part is the part that I mean to highlight for our purposes here.
What's their first one?
This one was the whole other topic so I'll leave this one alone for now.

I would say (b) is also true if we choose as the other source either or both of the "commandments" in Mark 12:28-34.
This must be the passage that TheListMaker was on about.
"Love God with all your heart and soul."
"Love your neighbour as yourself."

The problem I have with this being the unbreakable law that must be punished if broken, love is an emotion which you can't control directly. You can take steps that'll make you "more loving" in general but you can't turn it on and off. As ideals and guidelines I agree with them (except I'm still working out what it is to love God, especially when I'm not sure if I really believe in him! :D) but as law? Does that mean if you stop feeling love for someone for a split second then you've broken the law and need punishing?

Topher

18-Feb-2006, 01:34 AM

What other 10 Commandments?
We're specifically talking about in the Bible, right?
Aye!

Here is a post ( http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=756061&postcount=205
) by BendzR from another thread (hopefully he won't mind me refering to it):

Also, the ironic thing is that the Bible's 10 commandments are not even the ones we use today. Christianity relies more on word-of-mouth teaching than actually reading the Bible. Most Christians don't read the Bible. They read the bits that they are told to read, and listen to the rest.

Every Decalogue you see — from the 5,000-pound granite behemoth inside the Alabama State Judicial Building to the little wallet-cards sold at Christian bookstores — is bogus.

Simply reading the Bible will prove this. Getting out your King James version, turn to Exodus 20:2-17. You'll see the familiar list of rules about having no other gods, honoring your parents, not killing or coveting, and so on. At this point, though, Moses is just repeating to the people what God told him on Mount Si'nai. These are not written down in any form.

Later, Moses goes back to the Mount, where God gives him two "tables of stone" with rules written on them (Exodus 31:18). But when Moses comes down the mountain lugging his load, he sees the people worshipping a statue of a calf, causing him to throw a tantrum and smash the tablets on the ground (Exodus 32:19).

In neither of these cases does the Bible refer to "commandments." In the first instance, they are "words" which "God spake," while the tablets contain "testimony." It is only when Moses goes back for new tablets that we see the phrase "ten commandments" (Exodus 34:28). In an interesting turn of events, the commandments on these tablets are significantly different than the ten rules Moses recited for the people, meaning that either Moses' memory is faulty or God changed his mind.

Thus,the real "Ten Commandments" as handed down by the LORD unto Moses (and plainly listed in Exodus 34:13-28) :

1. Thou shalt worship no other god.
2. Thou shalt make thee no molten gods.
3. The feast of unleavened bread thou shalt keep
4. Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.
5. Thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end.
6. Thrice In the year shall all your men children appear before the Lord God.
7. Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven.
8. Neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of the passover be left unto the morning.
9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.
10. Thou shalt not seethe a kid [ie, a young goat] in his mother's milk.

Nothing about Murder, Rape, Stealing or Lying.

Fortunately the Bible does have Moses' incorrect version in it as well, which is better to use as a reference when Jesus said that these rules are part of the get-into-heaven requirements, since they seem more "moral" ( once again morality is a subjective term, even in 'Gods word' )

This morality has been around before the Bible. Since we've been social creatures for a lot longer than 6 thousand years.

aikiMac

18-Feb-2006, 01:49 AM

Good point, but Jesus didn't say that.
He could have said so, pointed out there was nothing unholy about picking grain and healing people, but he didn't use that line of defense. What he did do was ...
What he did do was make a very strong argument that the Pharisees could not rebut. :D His verbal aikido was quite top-notch.
(I don't know that David stole the show bread. If I remember it right, the priest gave the bread to David.)

What's their first one [of the Ten Commandments]?
"I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the land of slavery."
Some church traditions combine this phrase with, "You shall have no other gods before me," to make a single commandment. Other traditions break them into two commandments, numbered 1st and 2nd. Moses didn't number them so the numbering scheme is irrelevent.

The problem I have with this being the unbreakable law that must be punished if broken, love is an emotion which you can't control directly. You can take steps that'll make you "more loving" in general but you can't turn it on and off.
Speaking as a married man, I assert that love is not an emotion, or at the very least, love is far more than just an emotion. Infatuation is an emotion. Love is a decision that shows forth in actions. A person can turn love on or off. I can love my wife even when I don't have a pleasant emotion toward her.

Strafio

18-Feb-2006, 02:11 AM

Aye!

Here is a post ( http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=756061&postcount=205
) by BendzR from another thread (hopefully he won't mind me refering to it):
Hehe! Good post.
I never knew that.

As it happens, the main point of this discussion was the definition of sin, and that had been defined upon the "classic" 10 commandments so they were all that was relevant in this topic. I actually read through Exodus 34 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034%20;&version=31;) on the site Aikimac showed me.

BendZr actually missed one:
"The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

:eek:

Strafio

18-Feb-2006, 02:33 AM

What he did do was make a very strong argument that the Pharisees could not rebut. :D His verbal aikido was quite top-notch.
Yes, but argument happens to make a point of saying that the fourth commandment was made purely for our benefit and that we should ignore it if it was making life harder for us. So unless Jesus was just making things up and twisting words to confuse the authorities, he was supporting my idea of what the commandments are there for.

(I don't know that David stole the show bread. If I remember it right, the priest gave the bread to David.)
I just read it again... :o
It turned out he simply ate the bread, which broke the law itself but not the commandments. I, for some reason, read it as "stole". My bad! :)

Speaking as a married man, I assert that love is not an emotion, or at the very least, love is far more than just an emotion. Infatuation is an emotion. Love is a decision that shows forth in actions. A person can turn love on or off. I can love my wife even when I don't have a pleasant emotion toward her.
Hmmm... sometimes I think I'm still working out what "love" is.
I think the word love has a meaning too ambiguous to be law...
I think it's something you can gradually learn to do, gradually learn to become better at. (surely your idea of love has grown that much clearer with experience - I'm still a little confused at 20 :Angel:)

aikiMac

18-Feb-2006, 02:37 AM

So unless Jesus was just making things up and twisting words to confuse the authorities, he was supporting my idea of what the commandments are there for.
With respect to the 4th Comm, yes, I have to agree with you.

BendzR

18-Feb-2006, 08:32 AM

BendZr actually missed one:
"The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock. 20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
"No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

:eek:

9. The first of the firstfruits of thy land thou shalt bring unto the house of the LORD thy God.

I think they are the same thing. Not sure.

Strafio

18-Feb-2006, 10:39 AM

Possibly. In the one I read, the bit I copied and pasted was between 3 & 4.
It had the firstfruits of the harvest as well at number 9.

Topher

18-Feb-2006, 10:24 PM

So, how does this affect Christian sin, which is based on a different list.

Angelus

18-Feb-2006, 11:10 PM

One thing I've seen so far is this.

Scarficing animals is ok in the bible, since animals are in subjection to man in christianity. You just can't kill animal for the sake of killing it or torturing. Scarfice is not the samething as torture. A scarfice was seen as giving God a gift. Torture is an insane desire to watch an animal die without purpose.
Well in the end you are still killing the animal in a very inhumane way. The question is why give god a gift that comes from his own pocket in the first place? .... I see it this way..if god exists then everything on this earth- universe- is his. But the only thing that you can give to make him happy is good will. This is because God wants you to live the "good" life...but its your choice. I think it would make him happier if you did good because i dont really think he cares what animal you sacrifice in his name. We can never possibly understand god or the "idea of god"...it is beyond human capacity.

There is an old Indian Buddhist parrable... made popular in China:

A monkey claimed that he was the king of the universe... So he spoke to Buddha and said i want to be called king of the universe. Buddha said to him "go to the end of the universe... mark it and come back and i will name you the king of the universe". The monkey started his journey and marked the ends with pillars and returned. He said to buddha "I went to the ends of the universe and marked them and have returned ...now crown me king". Buddha looked at the monkey and laughed. Then he said to the monkey "How can you say you have travelled to the end of the universe when you haven't even left the palm of my hand?".

(i realise that the story is a little off-topic but i thought id share it because i just remembered about it now).

Strafio

19-Feb-2006, 12:13 PM

With respect to the 4th Comm, yes, I have to agree with you.
I can't think of a good way to imply that this implies similar to the rest of them (apart from maybe the stealing one). Also, any argument I'd have against the extra two would be the ability to correctly understand "love" (a word that could never be used the same way in a human law atleast...).

If I'm going to show that this Sin stuff is nonsense then it looks like I'll need to take a different approach. Seems we're done here.
(unless you have anything more you'd like add.) :)

So, how does this affect Christian sin, which is based on a different list.
I've been told that the final revised edition of Jewish law and traditions were set in Deuteronomy and Levicticus after they reached the promised land. Exodus is the journey there, so those laws would be a kind Beta version to make do on the way.

aikiMac

19-Feb-2006, 07:30 PM

I've been told that the final revised edition of Jewish law and traditions were set in Deuteronomy and Levicticus after they reached the promised land. Exodus is the journey there, so those laws would be a kind Beta version to make do on the way.
It's simpler than that. As everyone knows, the Ten Commandments that were written by God on two stone tablets are recorded in Deuteronomy 5. We know that these were the commandments written on stone tablets because Deut 5:22 says so.

CKava

19-Feb-2006, 11:01 PM

(i realise that the story is a little off-topic but i thought id share it because i just remembered about it now).
A little off topic???

Topher

19-Feb-2006, 11:22 PM

It's simpler than that. As everyone knows, the Ten Commandments that were written by God on two stone tablets are recorded in Deuteronomy 5. We know that these were the commandments written on stone tablets because Deut 5:22 says so.
Which two of the four stone tablets are you refering to?

jujitsuka07

05-Mar-2006, 05:21 AM

hay, why follow the commandments? just be a hyprocrite...

evangical christian, and pro war? who cares about "not murdering" being a commandment. "war isn't murder" right? since.. .when bombs miss and hit a family's house and kill the wife and kids "its god's will and for the greater good". gw bush is a good christian cuz he kills people for america!

(sarcasm hehe)

You used the term 'murder', but actually that word, if I'm not mistaken, means to kill intentionally out of hatred, greed, ect... My understanding is if a war is taking place where there is what we think of to be a "good cause", say to protect innocent civilians from being bullied, and bombs miss their target and hit a house, and the people die, it's not "murder"...it's accidental. Should those who fired the missle or those who ordered the firing of the missle have been more careful? Maybe. You might say "They had no right getting involved in that war in the first place!"...Well, that's something that hopefully they themselves cleared with God. And please understand I make these comments out of love...just trying to clear up some possible misunderstandings regarding the meaning of the word "murder".

CKava

05-Mar-2006, 06:45 AM

jujitsuka I think you've just made jroe's point...
who cares about "not murdering" being a commandment. "war isn't murder" right?
My understanding is if a war is taking place where there is what we think of to be a "good cause", say to protect innocent civilians from being bullied, and bombs miss their target and hit a house, and the people die, it's not "murder"...it's accidental.
Anyhow while I agree that the goal in most wars (by developed countries) is not to cause as many civilian casualties as possible I still think that whether you call it 'collateral damage' or 'murder' the fact is its still a bunch of innocent people getting their life taken away. I wonder if you would think its not murder if your entire family was wiped out by a stray missle accidentally during a war.

jujitsuka07

05-Mar-2006, 06:38 PM

Quote by jroe52: who cares about "not murdering" being acommandment. "war isn't murder" right?

Quote by jujitsuka07: ...it's not "murder"...it's accidental...(regarding stray missle)

Quote by CKava: jujitsuka I think you've just made jroe's point...

I assumed that jroe was poking at the people who call it accidental in that jroe thought it was all murder...I guess I assumed wrong??? (after all, it was 1:30 in the morning my time when I wrote that :eek: :bang: )

Quote by CKava: Anyhow while I agree that the goal in most wars (by developed countries) is not to cause as many civilian casualties as possible I still think that whether you call it 'collateral damage' or 'murder' the fact is its still a bunch of innocent people getting their life taken away. I wonder if you would think its not murder if your entire family was wiped out by a stray missle accidentally during a war.

Yes, their lives are being taken, and it is most sorrowful. If a stray missle killed my family, no doubt I would struggle with feelings of anger...It just appears differently to many of us because we are not/have not been in that situatuion. But I pray that if ever I come across that situation, that God would remove all anger from me, and bring me a peace about it.

Kwajman

06-Mar-2006, 04:14 PM

I always had problems with "thou shall not kill" and then the Lord orders certain people to kill.

Capt Ann

06-Mar-2006, 05:15 PM

If you were alive in 1935 and knew then what you know now, would you have objected if someone assassinated Hitler, Eichman, Mengele, and Hirohito?

Not meaning to trivialize your (very valid) concern, but I consider telling us not to murder and commanding certain people to be killed as one of the 'perks' of omniscience. It's also the difference between justified personal and national behavior: 'turn the other cheek' when a neighbor slights me, but use the military for national defense.

Kwajman

06-Mar-2006, 06:57 PM

I knew you'd pop up to smack me around a bit Ann :D . My point is that if there are exceptions to THAT rule, who decides (cept God) who makes the exceptions. I mean, listen to those nasty taliban saying, God told me to do this.........

Capt Ann

07-Mar-2006, 02:15 AM

Oops. Certainly wasn't my intention to smack anyone :o

You are right that only God can decide, and it gets really dicey when people start saying 'God told me .....'. The whole Bible, though, is the story of God speaking to regular ordinary people, so I know it can happen, and I know it does happen. That's why (fortunately) the same crowd in Christian circles that generally goes around saying "God told me..." also believes the Bible is the word of God. You use the one as a sanity check on the other. If I ever think that God is telling me something that I see as contrary to His nature as described in the Bible, I'll be the first to doubt what I thought I heard (i.e., don't worry, I'm not planning to go kill anyone).

Kwajman

07-Mar-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote by CKava: Anyhow while I agree that the goal in most wars (by developed countries) is not to cause as many civilian casualties as possible Yes, their lives are being taken, and it is most sorrowful. If a stray missle killed my family, no doubt I would struggle with feelings of anger...It just appears differently to many of us because we are not/have not been in that situatuion. But I pray that if ever I come across that situation, that God would remove all anger from me, and bring me a peace about it.

Not bombing civilian targets? See Dresden and Tokyo in WWII, virtually zero military value. Firebombed to the ground, more deaths than the atomic bomb possibly.

And Ann, your thoughts always seem to make sense to me, thank you!

CKava

07-Mar-2006, 04:22 PM

That's why I said 'most wars' back in the first half of the twentieth century that was the strategy adopted by many developed nations but nowadays most developed nations are held much more accountable for their actions than they were in WWII. Of course there is still vast amounts of rhetoric involved in wars but overall indifference to civilian casualties or direct targetting of civilian populations by the armies of developed countries is not really accepted these days.

Kwajman

07-Mar-2006, 07:14 PM

I want to apologize for getting htis thread off topic. Sorry folks.

tekkengod

08-Mar-2006, 01:13 PM

You are right that only God can decide, and it gets really dicey when people start saying 'God told me .....'. The whole Bible, though, is the story of God speaking to regular ordinary people, so I know it can happen, and I know it does happen. That's why (fortunately) the same crowd in Christian circles that generally goes around saying "God told me..." also believes the Bible is the word of God. You use the one as a sanity check on the other. If I ever think that God is telling me something that I see as contrary to His nature as described in the Bible, I'll be the first to doubt what I thought I heard (i.e., don't worry, I'm not planning to go kill anyone).

so even if your god speaks to you, you're going to doubt what hes telling you if it dosen't match the man made version of what hes supposed to say? that dosen't sound very christian like. :eek: seriously, dosen't that kinda negate the idea from your POV?

aikiMac

08-Mar-2006, 04:49 PM

so even if your god speaks to you, you're going to doubt what hes telling you if it dosen't match the man made version of what hes supposed to say? that dosen't sound very christian like. :eek: seriously, dosen't that kinda negate the idea from your POV?
You're injecting an assumption that Capt Ann already rejected. Seriously, doesn't that kinda negate your question? :rolleyes:

tekkengod

08-Mar-2006, 08:21 PM

You're injecting an assumption that Capt Ann already rejected. Seriously, doesn't that kinda negate your question? :rolleyes:

what did i inject? i'm working with the statement she made.

aikiMac

08-Mar-2006, 09:08 PM

what did i inject? i'm working with the statement she made.
Get real. Capt Ann has, and will, object to your assumption that the Bible is a "man made version of what [God is] supposed to say." :rolleyes:

Consider: If I repeatedly included rejected assumptions in my questions to you, would you not doubt my sincerity?

To ask questions is one thing. To repeatedly ask the same question is entirely different. That shows a lack of sincerity, and a lack of respect for the other person's humanity.

To propose an assertion is one thing. To repeatedly ignore the other guy's assertions is entirely different. That also shows a lack of sincerity, and a lack of respect for the other person's humanity.

Topher

08-Mar-2006, 10:41 PM

Get real. Capt Ann has, and will, object to your assumption that the Bible is a "man made version of what [God is] supposed to say." :rolleyes:
Are you proposing that the Bible was NOT written by man? :eek: :rolleyes:

thepunisher

08-Mar-2006, 11:00 PM

Are you proposing that the Bible was NOT written by man? :eek: :rolleyes:

Of course not, it was written by an alien travelling in a spacecraft while orbating the planet earth. Just weird how that alien knew how to write in the ancient language of latin, isn't it ?
;) :D :D

Christian

Topher

08-Mar-2006, 11:04 PM

Of course not, it was written by an alien travelling in a spacecraft while orbating the planet earth. Just weird how that alien knew how to write in the ancient language of latin, isn't it ?
;) :D :D

Christian
No, that would be Scientology! :p :D

CanuckMA

09-Mar-2006, 02:15 AM

aikiMac

09-Mar-2006, 02:55 AM

Are you proposing that the Bible was NOT written by man?
Post #45. Asked and answered.

Hebrew
With a splash of Aramaic, no? ;)

Topher

09-Mar-2006, 05:10 PM

Post #45. Asked and answered.

Here the entire post:

Get real. Capt Ann has, and will, object to your assumption that the Bible is a "man made version of what [God is] supposed to say." :rolleyes:

Consider: If I repeatedly included rejected assumptions in my questions to you, would you not doubt my sincerity?

To ask questions is one thing. To repeatedly ask the same question is entirely different. That shows a lack of sincerity, and a lack of respect for the other person's humanity.

To propose an assertion is one thing. To repeatedly ignore the other guy's assertions is entirely different. That also shows a lack of sincerity, and a lack of respect for the other person's humanity.

So where is the answer.

Are you suggesting the Bible wasn't written by men? A simple yes or no is fine. Thanks.

aikiMac

09-Mar-2006, 05:31 PM

Here the entire post:
Glad you found it. Are you going to ignore it now?
I don't have "stupid" written on my forehead. You've asked, I answered, you've ignored, you've asked again, I've answered, you've ignored, you've asked again, I've answered, you've ignored, you've asked again ... eventually it stops, dude.

It stopped.

Topher

09-Mar-2006, 06:08 PM

Glad you found it. Are you going to ignore it now?
I don't have "stupid" written on my forehead. You've asked, I answered, you've ignored, you've asked again, I've answered, you've ignored, you've asked again, I've answered, you've ignored, you've asked again ... eventually it stops, dude.

It stopped.
I never ignored it, its just seems your answers always seem to be abstract and ambiguous, often based on other unsupported premesis. Hence why i asked for a simple yes/no. It always speeds things up ;)

By anyway, it seems this part of the post is the "answer".....

Get real. Capt Ann has, and will, object to your assumption that the Bible is a "man made version of what [God is] supposed to say."

So as you say she will object to the Bible being man made, i guess your belief is that the Bible was NOT made by a human being! If so, who? Even if God 'gave' them the info, it was still a product of man.

aikiMac

09-Mar-2006, 06:32 PM

I never ignored it, its just seems your answers always seem to be abstract and ambiguous, often based on other unsupported premesis. Hence why i asked for a simple yes/no. It always speeds things up ;)
(underlining by me) Focus on that part. Then read what I said about lemmas and assumptions. You won't let them drop, but, simultaneously, you ask me about the thing to which I applied the lemma. Can't have it both ways. If you want to talk about the lemma, fine. If you want to talk about the thing to which I apply the lemma, THEN SHUT UP ABOUT THE LEMMA.

That's my issue with you.

So as you say she will object to the Bible being man made, i guess your belief is that the Bible was NOT made by a human being! If so, who? Even if God 'gave' them the info, it was still a product of man.
There has never been a single theologian-type scholar in the entire history of the Christian religion who argued that humans wrote the Bible as automatons, merely transcribing that which God spoke to them.

None.

I'm not going to be the first, and I cannot believe that Capt Ann wants to be the first.

Now before I answer you further, I have to ask you a question. It's a test of your sincerity. Let's find out here and now whether you will respect me or not. Question: Are you going to accept, for the sake of my answer, what I just stated? Or are you going to come back after the rest of my answer with a challenge to what I just stated?

If you're going to challenge it later there is no point in me going any further. Forget it.

tekkengod

09-Mar-2006, 06:39 PM

Get real. Capt Ann has, and will, object to your assumption that the Bible is a "man made version of what [God is] supposed to say." :rolleyes:

Consider: If I repeatedly included rejected assumptions in my questions to you, would you not doubt my sincerity?

That sounds like a failing of her logic, not my ability to pose the question.

Consider: Would i question your sencerity? Absolutely not, i would applaude your endurance.

tekkengod

09-Mar-2006, 06:43 PM

Topher

09-Mar-2006, 07:26 PM

(underlining by me) Focus on that part. Then read what I said about lemmas and assumptions. You won't let them drop, but, simultaneously, you ask me about the thing to which I applied the lemma. Can't have it both ways. If you want to talk about the lemma, fine. If you want to talk about the thing to which I apply the lemma, THEN SHUT UP ABOUT THE LEMMA.

That's my issue with you.
Of course I asked you about it. I’m trying to examine the validity of the argument.

But let’s break this down for a second so things are clear:
1. Please clarify the lemma.
2. Please clarify what you applied the lemma to.

There has never been a single theologian-type scholar in the entire history of the Christian religion who argued that humans wrote the Bible as automatons, merely transcribing that which God spoke to them.

None.

I'm not going to be the first, and I cannot believe that Capt Ann wants to be the first.

Now before I answer you further, I have to ask you a question. It's a test of your sincerity. Let's find out here and now whether you will respect me or not. Question: Are you going to accept, for the sake of my answer, what I just stated? Or are you going to come back after the rest of my answer with a challenge to what I just stated?

If you're going to challenge it later there is no point in me going any further. Forget it.
Sorry to be blunt, but if this your view on debating/learning, you’re a useless debater.

Do you honestly expect me to just accept an answer that I see problems with? That is not how debating works and it has nothing to do with respect or the person. You seem to think I don’t respect you, yet I respect everyone unless i have reason not to. With you i don't. But when debating, even if it were against someone who I highly respect such as Richard Dawkins, Nelson Mandela or anyone, if I see something which is not quite right I WILL question it. I don’t care who the person is. I keep doing this until understand the issue. This helps me learn. What I precisely will NOT do is just accept something simply because someone says it true, which is the difference between a person of faith and a person without any faith/a sceptic. We question before accepting. We don't have blindfaith.

I suspect many people here would agree with his viewpoint.

So, do you simply expect me to just unconditionally accept your claim? I hope you don't

Now as to the point, my natural response as a sceptic would be to look further into the claim that they received messages from God. Naturally this claim relies on the assumption that there IS a God, but assuming there is... humans are prone to mistakes so even if they really were receiving messages from God, who’s to say it was transcribed correctly. Why are you so sure it was? (genuine question) Who’s to say they didn’t simply dream or even make up the claim which became local truth and spiralled from there? One religion arose exactly in this manner making it a honest point. I would also ask further question about the authors of the Bible. Who were they really (as people), why should we believe them, are they mentioned in any other text other than the Bible? All very valid points.

I also see a very good point of God being an explanation for the universe/world/life so early humans, not having the intellect to know otherwise, may have postulated a creator of sorts to explain their existence, which then may have splintered thus creating numerous God and explinations.

Now, there is no malicious agenda here. I'm just proposing numerous possibilities/points which i feel are needed before one accepts anything. It’s a simple investigation of the claims.

See my point now?

aikiMac

09-Mar-2006, 10:04 PM

Do you honestly expect me to just accept an answer that I see problems with? That is not how debating works and it has nothing to do with respect or the person.
I expect you to let an answer go to completion. To add a little detail to this, I also expect you to drop your objections to the first part of an answer if it is needed for the second part of the answer.

Because you are unwilling to do this, I will not finish my answer. We'll just go with this: Whatever you said was right, and whatever I said was wrong. I concede that you know more about the whats and whys of Christian beliefs than I know.

But when debating, even if it were against someone who I highly respect such as Richard Dawkins, Nelson Mandela or anyone, if I see something which is not quite right I WILL question it.
I did not complain about this.

So, do you simply expect me to just unconditionally accept your claim? I hope you don't
No. I expect you to challenge an assumption or a lemma only at the assumption or lemma stage, and nowhere else. I expect that when you want a finished answer, that you will accept for the sake of my finished answer whatever lemmas I need to finish it.

I also see a very good point of God being an explanation for the universe/world/life so early humans, not having the intellect to know otherwise, may have postulated a creator of sorts to explain their existence, which then may have splintered thus creating numerous God and explinations.
Oh, so the people of long ago were stupid?
That attitude is the mark of a closed and arrogant mind, dude. Not good at all. You should reconsider.

Topher

09-Mar-2006, 10:59 PM

I expect you to let an answer go to completion. To add a little detail to this, I also expect you to drop your objections to the first part of an answer if it is needed for the second part of the answer.
If the first part of the claim/answer has problems (it’s based on faith, not evidence – major problem) then the second part, which is based on it will also inherit these same problems. So before moving onto the second part, it logically makes sense to work with the first part.

Because you are unwilling to do this, I will not finish my answer. We'll just go with this: Whatever you said was right, and whatever I said was wrong. I concede that you know more about the whats and whys of Christian beliefs than I know.
I never made any claims and demanded they were right. All I did was propose some valid points regarding you claim. Whether they are correct or not I cannot say yet, which precisely why I’m not accepting anything as truth. All I have in front of me are claim without supporting evidence. Certainly not the basis for accepting something as truth is it.

And I never said I knew more about Christianity. I’m just raising questions about your claim. Nothing more so please don’t make straw mans!

I did not complain about this.
Then why are you criticizing my questioning your claim.

No. I expect you to challenge an assumption or a lemma only at the assumption or lemma stage, and nowhere else. I expect that when you want a finished answer, that you will accept for the sake of my finished answer whatever lemmas I need to finish it.
A lemma is a proven proposition. So before it can be used to support further parts of an argument, it first needs to be proved to be true, which your claim hasn’t.

So I will accept the claim [it’s not a lemma yet], when you prove it. I will not accept it unproven, simply because you require it for the next stage of your argument/answer. Can you see just how fallacious what you’re asking me to do is – to accept something, despite the lack of evidence supporting it!? You argument doesn’t have much if it can only progress via someone accepting it. An argument should speak for itself, so regardless of whether I accept it now or not doesn’t matter because if it is a good argument, it will prove itself to everyone, thus it will be accepted.

Also, the lemma/assumption can be argued/refuted regardless of the stage the debate is in. Do you think a philosopher will say “oops… too late to refute that lemma, were already at the next stage” Rubbish! An erroneous claim is an erroneous claim regardless of the stage it’s in.

How can you use an unproven claim to support later claims? That’s like using jelly in the foundations of a house!

Oh, so the people of long ago were stupid?
That attitude is the mark of a closed and arrogant mind, dude. Not good at all. You should reconsider. [/QUOTE]
Primitive humans did not have the same intelligence as current humans.

aikiMac

10-Mar-2006, 03:51 AM

How can you use an unproven claim to support later claims?
It began with you so let's go back to you: How can you ask a question about the 10 commandments and not allow Deuteronomy 5 to be in the answer? And how can you ask a question about what a Christian thinks of the character of God without allowing him to list God's characteristics in the Bible? And how can you ask a question about Christianity without allowing God to be real and Jesus to be God and the Bible to be the word of God?

" :confused: " on you. If you're going to ask a question about a religion, you have to allow religious beliefs in the answer. It's the only way.

Topher

10-Mar-2006, 01:43 PM

It began with you so let's go back to you: How can you ask a question about the 10 commandments and not allow Deuteronomy 5 to be in the answer? And how can you ask a question about what a Christian thinks of the character of God without allowing him to list God's characteristics in the Bible? And how can you ask a question about Christianity without allowing God to be real and Jesus to be God and the Bible to be the word of God?

" :confused: " on you. If you're going to ask a question about a religion, you have to allow religious beliefs in the answer. It's the only way.
Obviously as a Christian you will believe that Jesus is God, the Bible is the word of God and so on. As I don’t have an emotional/personal attachment to these beliefs I see further questions which must be explored before it can be regarded as true and therefore accepted. Now as a personal belief, is fine, but it won’t be true without all the various issues being dealt with first.

As for what and when to accept something. It’s is a major problem when unsupported evidence/claims, are based on other unsupported evidence/claims, which itself is based on unsupported evidence/claims to which each preceding claim must be accepted to validate the next point, and thus the whole argument.

Example:
You must follow the word of God (1) > The word of God is in the Bible (2) > The Bible was created by God via man (3), The Bible is true (4).

1, 2, 3 and 4 all rely on each other for the whole argument to hold, yet neither are proven.

Analysis:
1. How do we know we must follow the word of God other than the claim itself?
2. Assuming we even do have to follow the word of God, how do we know the Bible is that word?
3. Assuming the Bible even is the words of God, how do we know they were transcribed accurately? Or how to we know it wasn’t made up or that the authors were misled?
4. How do we know this? Don’t the inconsistencies in it raise questions? These inconsistencies could be genuine, or simply be down to incorrect translations/transcriptions, which would then support my #3 – ‘how do we know it’s transcribed accurately.’ These inconsistencies would suggest it hasn’t, assuming of course that’s the cause of the inconsistencies.

On occasions people have said regarding this and related issues, 'we know because of Jesus' etc, but this simply continues the line of assumptions because we assume Jesus was God, and that his teachings are the path to God...etc. In the end the evidence for most claims in the Bible is simply the claims themselves.

I’m not being malicious here nor do I have any agenda. I’m simply picking out very real problems with the claims, problems tons of people notice, although almost always not by people who believe in claims.

In addition to the above, it’s a problem that one must believe/have faith in the claim/evidence - before it makes sense - in order for it to make sense. That’s not logical in anyway. Evidence should be good enough make even a sceptic believe in what it's supporting. If something true, it would be true regardless of someone accepting it and the reasoning, explanation and evidence would show this.

I'll finish on this version of your argument regarding that i must accept your claims: The cause of an itch is really microscopic gremlins living under your skin. In order for an itch to be true you must accept that claim. ;)

Strafio

10-Mar-2006, 02:03 PM

I'll finish on this version of your argument regarding that i must accept your claims: The cause of an itch is really microscopic gremlins living under your skin. In order for an itch to be true you must accept that claim. ;)
That example was more equivilent to "God (gremlins) made the world (itch) so if you believe in the world (itch) then you should believe in God (gremlins)."
I don't think Aikimac made any arguments like that.

Remember how all the laws of physics support each other?
There isn't one founding law that the rest are based on, they're all coherent and justify each other as a whole coherent system? Well Aikimac's saying that you can't just take one particular Christian belief on it's own and isolate it from the others. All these Christian beliefs compliment each other and require each other for context.

If you're talking about his justification for believing in them then it'll be partly subjective, through his own personal experiences. Objectively, I think that there are various evidences that support the authenticy of the Gospels/Ressurection. One I came across today was "details". There are unnecessary details that either weren't important, or atleast the author didn't seem to find them important.

Take the story of where Jesus calmed the seas, it said that he slept on a cussion - an unnecessary detail. Another is when some Jews brought him an adulteress (the "he who is without sin throw the first stone" story) and Jesus scribbled on the floor with his fingers. Although some people have guessed significance to what he scribbled, the author didn't mention it again so seemed to miss any importance they had - another unnecessary detail then.

Today, we take it for granted that people put explicit details into stories to make them more believable, but apparently it's been happening for less than 400-500 years. This particular observation is one of the ones used against "these Christians exadurated/made things up to push an agenda." A lot of these details would've been unnecessary to manufacture a story to push an agenda and the art of using detail to make a story more vivid and believable wouldn't culturally evolve for another 1500 years or so.

I'd hardly call the Christian belief flawless, and I don't think it's the "best fit" explanation of the way the world is, but I can see that people do have very good reason to believe in it. And it's not purely subjective "feelings" either.

CKava

10-Mar-2006, 03:43 PM

3. Assuming the Bible even is the words of God, how do we know they were transcribed accurately? Or how to we know it wasn’t made up or that the authors were misled?
I think the answer to this one is that many archaelogists and biblical scholars have spent their entire lives researching this topic and so there is already lots of good information available about the accuracy of the transcription which most of the Christians on here seem to be more aware of than the sceptics. As for the authors being miseld you have to take into account that the bibles as with most religious texts were written in order to preserve and spread a teaching as such its rather unlikely that people would have deliberately lied. You could argue this point but in the same way the first Buddhist scriptures recorded could have been complete fabrications based on nothing the Buddha ever said but that seems rather unlikely given that those involved were trying to preserve his teachings.

CKava

10-Mar-2006, 03:48 PM

4. How do we know this? Don’t the inconsistencies in it raise questions? These inconsistencies could be genuine, or simply be down to incorrect translations/transcriptions, which would then support my #3 – ‘how do we know it’s transcribed accurately.’ These inconsistencies would suggest it hasn’t, assuming of course that’s the cause of the inconsistencies.
Multiple authorship could account for inconsistencies... look at the Lao Tzu, the Taoist Canon or the Buddhist Canon for thousands of such examples. Buddhism & Taoism solve this issue by suggesting there are as many teachings as there are people and as such some teachings are meant for some type of people others are meant for other types and so on. Also Buddhism & Taoism usually talk about things like relative and absolute truth and 'skilful means' i.e. using an explanation or teaching that isn't strictly correct to help someone understand something- like the physics your taught at A Level. I don't know if Christians employ similiar methods but theres some food for thought anyway.

aikiMac

10-Mar-2006, 04:32 PM

3. Assuming the Bible even is the words of God, how do we know they were transcribed accurately? Or how to we know it wasn’t made up or that the authors were misled?
Post #63 by CKava is accurate. Additionally, this question has been answered at least 5 times by me on this forum while you were also on this forum participating in religion threads.

Assuming we even do have to follow the word of God, how do we know the Bible is that word?
History. This also has been asked on MAP and answered by me more than once while you were on the forum.

Don’t the inconsistencies in it raise questions? These inconsistencies could be genuine, or simply be down to incorrect translations/transcriptions, which would then support my #3 – ‘how do we know it’s transcribed accurately.’
To know whether there are inconsistencies, you would have to know what the Bible says. You're not there yet. You can't read the original languages, you don't know who the characters are, you don't know the time periods of the stories and the dates of the writings, you don't know what was going on in the world when those stories took place, you don't know how people lived back then and what their idioms and practices were, etc. (You didn't even know that the 10 Commandments are in Deuteronomy chapter 5. Remember?) Until you know these things, you are not in a position to assert an inconsistency. To do otherwise is to say that the people who actually knew all this stuff that you do not know, consciously forwarded lies down through the ages. Like, "Hey son, this is crap. I know it's crap because I was there, and my daddy was there, and we witnessed it. But that doesn't matter. I'm going to teach it to you anyway, and I want you to do the same for your children."

Reconsider.

After you are in a position to discern whether an inconsistency exists, then you can ask questions about it (assuming that there is an inconsistency). At that point you'll discover that generations of people who are truly qualified to talk about this topic have been writing books on it for centuries. If they don't have a problem with it, maybe there's a reason, eh? Maybe?

Sparkle

10-Mar-2006, 06:02 PM

Alright guys . . . alright, alright, alright. It's time to take a chill pill for a couple of posts! I think everyone should just hit the reset button and try again, like it worked out in the other thread and well . . . it just seems to get somewhere other then upping your post counts with telling the other guy he's an idiot in a really long, drawn out fashion :woo:

CKava

10-Mar-2006, 06:21 PM

I don't think Homer's an idiot and I'm not at all upset? and I have a funny feeling Homer isn't going to find my replies particularly upsetting either and I dont think Homer has ever implied Im an idiot.

Sparkle

10-Mar-2006, 06:23 PM

CKava

10-Mar-2006, 06:28 PM

Apologies then I misinterpreted your last post.

Topher

10-Mar-2006, 07:19 PM

That example was more equivilent to "God (gremlins) made the world (itch) so if you believe in the world (itch) then you should believe in God (gremlins)."
I don't think Aikimac made any arguments like that.
I was just trying to illustrate that aiki was trying to get me to accept something I felt had flaws. But yeah, could have been a better analogy.

Remember how all the laws of physics support each other?
There isn't one founding law that the rest are based on, they're all coherent and justify each other as a whole coherent system? Well Aikimac's saying that you can't just take one particular Christian belief on it's own and isolate it from the others. All these Christian beliefs compliment each other and require each other for context.
But with physics and other sciences, the evidence used to support other claims has been proven and/or has support/evidence of its own. I’m contending that the evidence used to support Christianities further claims doesn’t have support/evidence of its own and is missing important reasoning factors. If a bunch of beliefs all require each other to make the overall argument stand, each sub claim in the argument needs to be valid and proven.

Also I wasn’t trying to isolate particular beliefs, more like break them down for easier discussion.

I think that there are various evidences that support the authenticy of the Gospels/Ressurection.
Such as? Resurrection evidence would be interesting.

I think the answer to this one is that many archaelogists and biblical scholars have spent their entire lives researching this topic and so there is already lots of good information available about the accuracy of the transcription which most of the Christians on here seem to be more aware of than the sceptics. As for the authors being miseld you have to take into account that the bibles as with most religious texts were written in order to preserve and spread a teaching as such its rather unlikely that people would have deliberately lied. You could argue this point but in the same way the first Buddhist scriptures recorded could have been complete fabrications based on nothing the Buddha ever said but that seems rather unlikely given that those involved were trying to preserve his teachings.
Good example there of me posting a proposition and someone posting a good reason why it may be wrong.

Cheers. Do you know of any [objective] websites with further info?

Additionally, this question has been answered at least 5 times by me on this forum while you were also on this forum participating in religion threads.
I do not doubt it has (I can’t remember exactly) but this is a new debate. Anyway, all the religion threads are all repeats.

To know whether there are inconsistencies, you would have to know what the Bible says. You're not there yet. You can't read the original languages, you don't know who the characters are, you don't know the time periods of the stories and the dates of the writings, you don't know what was going on in the world when those stories took place, you don't know how people lived back then and what their idioms and practices were, etc. (You didn't even know that the 10 Commandments are in Deuteronomy chapter 5. Remember?) Until you know these things, you are not in a position to assert an inconsistency. To do otherwise is to say that the people who actually knew all this stuff that you do not know, consciously forwarded lies down through the ages. Like, "Hey son, this is crap. I know it's crap because I was there, and my daddy was there, and we witnessed it. But that doesn't matter. I'm going to teach it to you anyway, and I want you to do the same for your children."
So you always get your information for something via first hand and never seek resources? Are all the independent sources stating various inconsistencies incorrect?

Also, as you mentioned it, God gave Moses two tablets of 10 Commandments. Moses broke them and God gave him two more tablets of 10 Commandments, only this time the list was different. Why was the list different? That's all i want to know.

Thanks

Strafio

10-Mar-2006, 07:36 PM

Such as? Resurrection evidence would be interesting.
Nothing that's quite convinced me.
Again, (see my post in the other topic for authenticy of the gospels), it's not so much a case of solid evidence of Jesus rising from the dead but more the alternative "rational" explanations that explain the claims.

Claims that he didn't actually die would mean that the Roman's who were expert executioners had failed to do what they did best.
Claims that he wasn't alive again and that people just hallucinated/dreamed etc. don't seem to work as people saw him as a group (in groups as big as 30). Hallucinations/dreams are personal and wouldn't have coincidently affected 30+ people at the same time in the same way, etc...

Having said that, I've only come across these particular arguments from Christian sources so there is perhaps a bias as to how they constructed the argument, which bits of psychology they used etc...

aikiMac

10-Mar-2006, 08:03 PM

Such as? Resurrection evidence would be interesting.
Asked and answered in an earlier thread. I gave some references, and Capt Ann (she owns a bookstore, you know) gave even more references. I might be able to find that thread it in a search. Don't know.

Edit: here's a post that you ignored (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=726389&postcount=378)
Here, start at page 15 post 215 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24975&page=15&pp=15) and keep going. More material that you ignored.
I haven't found the post with the references to specific books, but it will turn up.

I do not doubt it has (I can’t remember exactly) but this is a new debate. Anyway, all the religion threads are all repeats.
But should they be? How many times would you have me answer your question? Come on, once it's done, let it be done.

Also, as you mentioned it, God gave Moses two tablets of 10 Commandments. Moses broke them and God gave him two more tablets of 10 Commandments, only this time the list was different. Why was the list different? That's all i want to know.
Asked and answered already. It was the same 10. All told, there are well over 600 commandments in the Old Testament. Only 10 were put on stone at the hand of God. Those 10 are in Deuteronomy chapter 5. The Jews and Christians alike have always believed this from the beginning. Let it go. Forever hereafter, the same 10 were put on the new tablets. If you can't accept that answer for the sake of a discussion then politeness demands that you never ask a question that requires this as part of the answer.

The numbering system for the Ten Comm. (aka, Decalogue) is arbitrary. Moses said there were 10 but he didn't number them for us, so you can number them any way you want. It doesn't matter. Different church traditions number them differently because it doesn't matter.

Topher

10-Mar-2006, 08:38 PM

[QUOTE=aikiMac]here's a post that you ignored (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=726389&postcount=378)
Here, start at page 15 post 215 (http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24975&page=15&pp=15) and keep going. More material that you ignored.
I haven't found the post with the references to specific books, but it will turn up.
It’s rich for you to talk to me about ignoring posts, posts which are months and months old, forgotten about. On the other hand you’ve ignored posts a few hours/days old. :rolleyes:

Asked and answered already. It was the same 10. All told, there are well over 600 commandments in the Old Testament. Only 10 were put on stone at the hand of God. Those 10 are in Deuteronomy chapter 5. The Jews and Christians alike have always believed this from the beginning. Let it go. Forever hereafter, the same 10 were put on the new tablets. If you can't accept that answer for the sake of a discussion then politeness demands that you never ask a question that requires this as part of the answer.

The numbering system for the Ten Comm. (aka, Decalogue) is arbitrary. Moses said there were 10 but he didn't number them for us, so you can number them any way you want. It doesn't matter. Different church traditions number them differently because it doesn't matter.
Ann provided a good explanation in the other thread. The best I’ve seen so far. I don’t even remember your ‘explanations’. Maybe they were a few years back! :banghead: