The Moral Failings of Christianity - New Testament as a Shield

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

However, as for what I've been arguing with you about for the last page or two isn't about a specific faith, but more about the belief in God, which I consider important to society and to humanity.

Even if we take that as a starting point it leads to the question 'which god?' and 'which revelation?' if the faith itself isn't so specific for you. Remember the faith and associated acts of worship stem from the belief and unfortunately for those who support the idea of a god there are dozens if not hundreds of religions that stem from the belief each claiming to exclusively know the mind of god.

The idea of a god or something so extraordinary that we have no other word for it but god exists. But it is a huge leap to believe that if there is it has the slightest interest in us. It's an even larger leap to suggest that not only does it have an interest but I can tell you how it thinks through the Torah, Bible, Koran etc. And of course if all the above is true....who is correct? Who is correct amongst the multitude of sects within each world faith. Who is correct amongst the millions if not billions of 'personal gods'; the beliefs that individuals hold about their deity.

I personally have a kind of "wait and see" attitude. At the very least, I hope that I'm right about two things: 1, there is a God, and 2, he is merciful. If both are correct, then I hope that if I am wrong on everything else, that when I die, God would rather enlighten me than cast me into Hell for being wrong. However, if there is no God, then having the right faith isn't important at all, because in the end you're going to die and become nothing; which means that life is more about enjoying it than being right.

You are aware that if you are wrong (and I for that matter) and that Islam is 'the one' then you go straight to hell? The reason I ask this is that you seem to be expecting something from a god that neither Christianity or Islam for example allow for; mercy for not believeing or holding the wrong belief. Do you believe that you would be held in higher regarding for picking the 'wrong god' than I would be for not believing in any?

You also seem to making the assumption that not having a faith makes one frivolous and vapid. I held a faith until early this year. I now do not; it hasn't changed my morals, how I treat others or my outlook on life in the slightest.

1) If Islam is the one, then a large majority of us are screwed.
2) I personally think, that if the true God is the Christian God, then he woudl rather enlighten people than send the to Hell, however, I don't know that for a fact.
3) I don't believe lack of a religion makes you frivoloud or superficial, but I do believe that that is the logical course, given that I believe a logical atheist woudl just do whatever he/she wanted, knowing that there was no god to care, and that the only thing worth doing in a godless world would be having a good time. But that's just me.

[John Dibble]

1) If Islam is the one, then a large majority of us are screwed.

That's the case if the Christian one is the one as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On what basis do you believe that? The Bible indicates otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already refuted this argument, but it's apparent you don't agree. I suggest you actually take the time to go out and meet some atheists and get to know them - you might be surprised.

[Yelnoc]

I don't know that saying the New Testament is used as a "shield" for the old test is valid.  I grew up in church and the view I am generally presented is that the Old Testament is a book of history and law, that law being the old covenant of God.  With the old covenant replaced by the new covenant (Jesus dying on the cross for our sins) then the "law" section of the old testament is no longer meaningful, having been "covered by the blood of Jesus Christ" so to speak.  That only leaves the history sections of the bible for the New Testament to shield.

Comparing the New Testament and the Old Testament, they have very different subject matter.  The new testament covers a span of nearly four decades while the old testaments purportedly covers several millenia, from the beginning of time until the birth of Jesus Christ.  It is hard to see how the New Testament can be used to "shield" the teachings of the Old Testament if the OT covers vastly different subject matter and much of it is made irrelevant by the New Testament anyway.

I can see how you could think of the emphasis on the new testament as a "shield" to the old testament because it is the NT that is taught to new believers and emphasized in most churches and personal bible studies.  This is going back to the idea of most of the old testament being invalid.

I can already see you typing up your response, pointing out how you have already discussed the genocide the israelites committ in Joshua, the way God toys with Job like a cat with a mouse, the way violence and unethical acts seem so common in the old testament.  Honestly, I cannot answer those charges with my christian face on.  The old testament was compiled over thousands of years during periods where what we consider "human rights violations" were common place, when personal and societal moral codes were still in the early stages of development.  In my honest opinion, the only reason that Christianity retains the old testament is because it still retains its Jewish heritage (and because that's the way things have always been).  The Christian religion really does not need the Old Testament to be doctrinally sound, in fact, getting rid of it would make its moral code much more air-tight.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

1) If Islam is the one, then a large majority of us are screwed.

That's the case if the Christian one is the one as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

On what basis do you believe that? The Bible indicates otherwise.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've already refuted this argument, but it's apparent you don't agree. I suggest you actually take the time to go out and meet some atheists and get to know them - you might be surprised.

1) However, there's a larger amount of people in Christianity than in Islam
2) From what I've heard and read, Jesus didn't ask for a word on word interpretation of what God wants us to do, but isntead to do good acts, and to love and serve God. There's also the old phrase (which I don't really believe), "sure we know there's a Hell, but is anyone in it?" I've had teachers who have also brought up the example of a good person living in a village where no-onehad ever heard of Christianity. However, it is believed if that person serves his family/religion/morality/whatever faithfully, that when he/she dies, that person will be accepted into heaven.
3) I honestly am not surrounded by many atheists. The only one I know, a Korean foreign exchange student, woudl rather not argue about it. However, I will gladly bug Kalwejt or Hashemite with orders saying you told me to do so.

By the way, I still find it very interesting to find out where atheists get their morals from. Just, for example, where does one get the idea that life is sacred? We are, after all, scientifically, only the products of evolution, or to pull something from an Ayn Rand book (the character that said this was not a protagonist), cells with an illusion of grandeur.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I don't know that saying the New Testament is used as a "shield" for the old test is valid.  I grew up in church and the view I am generally presented is that the Old Testament is a book of history and law, that law being the old covenant of God.  With the old covenant replaced by the new covenant (Jesus dying on the cross for our sins) then the "law" section of the old testament is no longer meaningful, having been "covered by the blood of Jesus Christ" so to speak.  That only leaves the history sections of the bible for the New Testament to shield.

Comparing the New Testament and the Old Testament, they have very different subject matter.  The new testament covers a span of nearly four decades while the old testaments purportedly covers several millenia, from the beginning of time until the birth of Jesus Christ.  It is hard to see how the New Testament can be used to "shield" the teachings of the Old Testament if the OT covers vastly different subject matter and much of it is made irrelevant by the New Testament anyway.

I can see how you could think of the emphasis on the new testament as a "shield" to the old testament because it is the NT that is taught to new believers and emphasized in most churches and personal bible studies.  This is going back to the idea of most of the old testament being invalid.

I can already see you typing up your response, pointing out how you have already discussed the genocide the israelites committ in Joshua, the way God toys with Job like a cat with a mouse, the way violence and unethical acts seem so common in the old testament.  Honestly, I cannot answer those charges with my christian face on.  The old testament was compiled over thousands of years during periods where what we consider "human rights violations" were common place, when personal and societal moral codes were still in the early stages of development.  In my honest opinion, the only reason that Christianity retains the old testament is because it still retains its Jewish heritage (and because that's the way things have always been).  The Christian religion really does not need the Old Testament to be doctrinally sound, in fact, getting rid of it would make its moral code much more air-tight.

Given that Jesus was educated in Old Testament manners, and that he has a cameo in it, the OT is probably just as valid.

[John Dibble]

1) However, there's a larger amount of people in Christianity than in Islam

Only by about half a billion, give or take a hundred million. The current world population is 6.7 billion. The estimated number of Christians is 2 to 2.2 billion. Do the math - over half aren't either of those things. If either of those religions are true, then most of us are screwed either way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I've heard those things but frankly it's a rather new way of thinking in Christianity. Historically the majority view has been that you have to be a faithful believer in this life to be saved, a view many still hold today, and from what I know of the Bible the scripture supports that view.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You'll not really get to know an atheist through a message board. Suffice to say I know quite a few atheists and largely we live our lives the same as anyone else. This applies to the ones versed in logic as well. The only significant difference as far as I can tell is that we do get to sleep in on Sundays if we want.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I don't think that an atheist would think life is "sacred" in any kind of religious context, rather important and something to be preserved as best possible. After all, we're life too. Human life at that, so we behave as humans evolved - with empathy, so we care about each other. One of the joys of being an intelligent social animal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

1) However, there's a larger amount of people in Christianity than in Islam

Given current population trends it is projected that in a couple of decades Islam will overtake Christianity in number of adherents.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

seeing how the NT quotes the OT hundreds of times and doesn't go beyond what the OT said would happen, the NT would look like swiss cheese if you remove the OT from it.  And swiss cheese is far from "air-tight".  In fact, having the NT in agreement with the OT, as it already is, makes it air-tight.

[Yelnoc]

The Christian religion really does not need the Old Testament to be doctrinally sound, in fact, getting rid of it would make its moral code much more air-tight.

seeing how the NT quotes the OT hundreds of times and doesn't go beyond what the OT said would happen, the NT would look like swiss cheese if you remove the OT from it.  And swiss cheese is far from "air-tight".  In fact, having the NT in agreement with the OT, as it already is, makes it air-tight.

When did I become John Fitzgerald Sexgod Kennedy?


Anyway, please explain how the unconditional love of the old testament God melds with the highly judgemental, sadistic God of the old testament?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

seeing how the NT quotes the OT hundreds of times and doesn't go beyond what the OT said would happen, the NT would look like swiss cheese if you remove the OT from it.  And swiss cheese is far from "air-tight".  In fact, having the NT in agreement with the OT, as it already is, makes it air-tight.

please explain how the unconditional love of the old new testament God melds with the highly judgemental, sadistic God of the old testament?

The lake of fire will be infinitely worse than anything God did in the OT, so how can you say God was mean in the OT but now is nice?  It is true that God has now provided cleansing from sin and a direct relationship with him through Christ, but his wrath is still coming and all those temporary acts of vengeance he did in the OT were simply warnings of the infinitely worse and infinitely longer judgment to come.

1Cor 10:11 “These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come.”

We can’t understand the love of God if we don’t understand what his mercy saves us from and therefore what his mercy means.  That’s why his love is couched in the context of a condition of a preexisting condemnation:

Rom 5:8-9 “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!”

The sequence if very simple:
1)   I am a sinner
2)   My sins have eternally condemned me
3)   Christ died in order to save me from that condemnation

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

The Christian religion really does not need the Old Testament to be doctrinally sound, in fact, getting rid of it would make its moral code much more air-tight.

seeing how the NT quotes the OT hundreds of times and doesn't go beyond what the OT said would happen, the NT would look like swiss cheese if you remove the OT from it.  And swiss cheese is far from "air-tight".  In fact, having the NT in agreement with the OT, as it already is, makes it air-tight.

When did I become John Fitzgerald Sexgod Kennedy?


Anyway, please explain how the unconditional love of the old testament God melds with the highly judgemental, sadistic God of the old testament?

He must have been quoting both of us and accidently deleted your quote box.

[Yelnoc]

He must have been quoting both of us and accidently deleted your quote box.

I thought so.  T'was tongue-in-cheek.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the old testament, God commands the Israelites to committ genocide amongst other immoral acts and screws Job over because he wants to see how long the man will stay dedicated to him.  In the New Testament, his covenant is summed up nicely by Luke 10:27

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

This seems at odds with the old testament deity, does it not?  You do bring up a good point though.  The lake of fire, place of eternal nashing of teeth.  Does that not contradict the above bible verse which is so important to Christian theology that it shows up again in Matthew 22:36-40? 

You say that God's sacrifice of his son was to save of from Hell.  Why do we have to go to hell anyway?  If all he wants to do is separate us from himself, why not keep us on Earth or send us to a place that does not involve eternal torment?  Is there a reason we must burn for not acknowledging this deity?  He sounds rather self-absorbed to me.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In the old testament, God commands the Israelites to committ genocide amongst other immoral acts

And, this is explicitly stated (see Lev 18 and Lev 20) as a result of God’s judgment against the nations that lived in Canaan.  And that condemnation still remains for those explicitly mentioned acts (adultery, fornication, incest, homosexuality, bestiality) in the NT. And God told Israel if they did the same things they too would be destroyed and the land given to someone else, so it was also a warning to Israel.  And it serves as a warning of an enternal judgment that is infinitely harsher.

---

screws Job over because he wants to see how long the man will stay dedicated to him.

again, as an example to us that God isn’t opposed to us simply because tragedy strikes.

---

  In the New Testament, his covenant is summed up nicely by Luke 10:27

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

This seems at odds with the old testament deity, does it not?  

Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament – i.e. these commands did NOT originate in the new covenant, rather they were written by “the old testament deity”.

---

You do bring up a good point though.  The lake of fire, place of eternal nashing of teeth.  Does that not contradict the above bible verse which is so important to Christian theology that it shows up again in Matthew 22:36-40?  
You say that God's sacrifice of his son was to save of from Hell.  Why do we have to go to hell anyway?  If all he wants to do is separate us from himself, why not keep us on Earth or send us to a place that does not involve eternal torment?  Is there a reason we must burn for not acknowledging this deity?  He sounds rather self-absorbed to me.

Your theology is so watered down (you can’t accept the concept of God’s wrath or judgment or eternal punishment), what’s the use in continuing this conversation.  The New Testament teaches all of these things, and does so repeatedly as well as warn against those who ignore such teachings. if you can’t accept what the NT teaches, then so be it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

1) However, there's a larger amount of people in Christianity than in Islam

Given current population trends it is projected that in a couple of decades Islam will overtake Christianity in number of adherents.

Sadly...

[Yelnoc]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, basically, Christian theology is about escaping punishment?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

God engineered those tragedies to test Job.  I don't see how you get that moral lesson from the story.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really?  Where in the Old Testament doe sit say that?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that God's wrath and punishment are recurring themes throughout the bible but they are much more toned down in the New Testament.  Love, redemption, and eternal salvation are focused upon much more in the New Testament than judgement, sacrfice, and eternal damnation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He was referring to demographic trends; the children of Muslim parents will not necessarily grow up to muslims, especially in developed countries.  Just like with Christianity over the past half-century, I believe we will start to see the number of children raised as muslims grow up to become athiests/agnostics/deists/etc.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, basically, Christian theology is about escaping punishment?

Is this a trick question?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Acts 13:38 “I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.”

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

God engineered those tragedies to test Job.  I don't see how you get that moral lesson from the story.

Likewise, I don’t see how you don’t see that the story is meant to teach us to continue to trust in God even when life takes a turn for the worse.

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Really?  Where in the Old Testament does sit say that?

Dt 6:5 “Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.”

Lev 19:18 “love your neighbor as yourself”

---

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand that God's wrath and punishment are recurring themes throughout the bible but they are much more toned down in the New Testament.  Love, redemption, and eternal salvation are focused upon much more in the New Testament than judgement, sacrfice, and eternal damnation.

Well, what is the meaning of redemption and eternal salvation if it doesn't have to do with escaping judgment and eternal damnation? 

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Dibble must be glad. He's posted only one topic on the "moral failings of Christianity", and already he's up to five pages.

[John Dibble]

Dibble must be glad. He's posted only one topic on the "moral failings of Christianity", and already he's up to five pages.

I'm happy with the discussion thus far, but mainly because it's been rather cordial and seems to have been thought provoking and interesting for a number of people. Just being long doesn't necessarily mean a discussion has content.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Just thinking out loud here, but...

Isn't atheism the belief that if you see a structure, it's believable that not only was it created by nothing, but it's perfectly logical, and the presence of a builder woudl not be required?

[Associate Justice PiT]

Just thinking out loud here, but...

Isn't atheism the belief that if you see a structure, it's believable that not only was it created by nothing, but it's perfectly logical, and the presence of a builder woudl not be required?

     No, not really. Many atheists make no claim as to knowing how the universe came to be; they just do not believe that the Christian God or any other deity had a role in the process.

[afleitch]

Just thinking out loud here, but...

Isn't atheism the belief that if you see a structure, it's believable that not only was it created by nothing, but it's perfectly logical, and the presence of a builder woudl not be required?

     No, not really. Many atheists make no claim as to knowing how the universe came to be; they just do not believe that the Christian God or any other deity had a role in the process.

Indeed.

Cathcon, you seem to know very little about athiesm.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Just thinking out loud here, but...

Isn't atheism the belief that if you see a structure, it's believable that not only was it created by nothing, but it's perfectly logical, and the presence of a builder woudl not be required?

     No, not really. Many atheists make no claim as to knowing how the universe came to be; they just do not believe that the Christian God or any other deity had a role in the process.

Indeed.

Cathcon, you seem to know very little about athiesm.

I'm going by what Dibble said. I recall him saying that, according to a lecture he saw or something he read, that it would be scientifically possible for the universe to have been created without a God.

It seems like you're saying that atheism says "Look, religion, we don't know how the univerese was created, but we know for a fact that it didn't involve any deity". That doesn't sound like a very reasonable statement to my ears.

[John Dibble]

It seems like you're saying that atheism says "Look, religion, we don't know how the univerese was created, but we know for a fact that it didn't involve any deity". That doesn't sound like a very reasonable statement to my ears.

Allow me to clarify - what I said is that our current understanding of quantum mechanics makes a deity redundant in the creation of the universe. By redundant I mean that it isn't a necessary component. A deity may very well have been involved, but what we do know indicates that it would not have to have been a part of it. Of course, there are still gaps in our knowledge, like knowing why the laws of quantum mechanics exist. Still, there is no evidence for there being some kind of intelligence creating them, so it isn't logically sound to assume that there was.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It seems like you're saying that atheism says "Look, religion, we don't know how the univerese was created, but we know for a fact that it didn't involve any deity". That doesn't sound like a very reasonable statement to my ears.

Allow me to clarify - what I said is that our current understanding of quantum mechanics makes a deity redundant in the creation of the universe. By redundant I mean that it isn't a necessary component. A deity may very well have been involved, but what we do know indicates that it would not have to have been a part of it. Of course, there are still gaps in our knowledge, like knowing why the laws of quantum mechanics exist. Still, there is no evidence for there being some kind of intelligence creating them, so it isn't logically sound to assume that there was.

How?

(now, I"m gonna go through this step by step so it's easier for you to debunk it)

Doesn't the Big Bang Theory (if that's what you're going on) claim that the universe started out as a dot the size of a period (how the hell did that get there?), and that for some reason, it exploded?

Then through no act of God, centers of gravity formed, around which dust particles began to orbit, heating up and creating balls of earth and rock called planets...

After which, a series of chemicals descended upon the earth, giving us gases like oxygen...

Then, at the same time, chemicals began forming amino acids, which had the ability to create the first form of life...

Apparently, in the newly created ocean, which came from Oxygen and Hydrogen, the first cell appeared called a Euglena, which was sort of a cross between a plant and animal cell, and somehow this thing came to being with DNA and instincts which taught it how to live...

bacteria (or something), plants, waterlife, etc. somehow all come from this first cell (or was it multiple, independently created cells?), and slowly but surely, evolved into modern life as we know it.

All without any intent from on high to do so. Seems like a pointless, random, and lonely world to live in, if you ask me.

Excuse the crudeness of this narrative, I'm using what I remember from science class. Knowing how this works, a large amount of my data I somehow screwed up.

[afleitch]

It seems like you're saying that atheism says "Look, religion, we don't know how the univerese was created, but we know for a fact that it didn't involve any deity". That doesn't sound like a very reasonable statement to my ears.

Allow me to clarify - what I said is that our current understanding of quantum mechanics makes a deity redundant in the creation of the universe. By redundant I mean that it isn't a necessary component. A deity may very well have been involved, but what we do know indicates that it would not have to have been a part of it. Of course, there are still gaps in our knowledge, like knowing why the laws of quantum mechanics exist. Still, there is no evidence for there being some kind of intelligence creating them, so it isn't logically sound to assume that there was.

How?

(now, I"m gonna go through this step by step so it's easier for you to debunk it)

Doesn't the Big Bang Theory (if that's what you're going on) claim that the universe started out as a dot the size of a period (how the hell did that get there?), and that for some reason, it exploded?

Then through no act of God, centers of gravity formed, around which dust particles began to orbit, heating up and creating balls of earth and rock called planets...

After which, a series of chemicals descended upon the earth, giving us gases like oxygen...

Then, at the same time, chemicals began forming amino acids, which had the ability to create the first form of life...

Apparently, in the newly created ocean, which came from Oxygen and Hydrogen, the first cell appeared called a Euglena, which was sort of a cross between a plant and animal cell, and somehow this thing came to being with DNA and instincts which taught it how to live...

bacteria (or something), plants, waterlife, etc. somehow all come from this first cell (or was it multiple, independently created cells?), and slowly but surely, evolved into modern life as we know it.

All without any intent from on high to do so. Seems like a pointless, random, and lonely world to live in, if you ask me.

Excuse the crudeness of this narrative, I'm using what I remember from science class. Knowing how this works, a large amount of my data I somehow screwed up.

The question you should be asking is...why does any of this need or require a 'god'? If you believe it needed a 'creator' why does that creator have to be a deity; it could have been an alien (panspermia) it could have been a time traveller, it could have been a fish. Inserting 'god' makes no sense over the countless other explanations - 'nothing' makes as much relative sense as 'god.'