Anti-religion internet memes

The problem is that the morals of man are quite flexible. After all, I'm sure many of those who willingly joined the Nazi regime believed they were "right" and "moral" and "just", much like white supremacists today believe they are morally superior because they deride the "lesser races".

Whose "moral order" do you choose to follow, and by what right is that order chosen over others?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Addressed in post 118 - also, this is Old Testament.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They didn't manage to kill all the gays - so that hasn't been completed yet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

 

billvon, I honestly can't tell if you are attempting to be funny with that comment, or simply didn't bother to read post 114 at all?

More like lighting the fuse on a firework - it's gone off, exploded, and cannot do so again.

 

Half joking, and I did read post 114.

The basic problem is the term "accomplished." Here's a short list of 5:18 translations:

. . . not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
. . . one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
. . . not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
. . . not one stroke, not one dot, is going to disappear from the law, until it’s all come true.

The most literal possible translation from the Greek would be "iota one, or one stroke of a letter, no not shall pass away from the law until everything should happen."

So you can take that very literally and say "well, Christ being killed is everything, so then the law can pass away." But the previous line contradicts that - "not I have come to accomplish, but to fulfill" (again very literal translation of the Greek.) and also says this is true "until heaven and Earth pass away." You can't fulfill something by taking it away, and the passage makes it quite clear that this instruction is valid until the end of time - not until the time of someone's death.

So the more rational way of interpreting that is "no part of the law shall pass away until it has been fulfilled." The problem with that, of course, is that the laws have NOT been fulfilled. If you drive home and do 65mph the whole way, and the speed limit is 65mph, you could say you have fulfilled the law. Great. But if you get pulled over the next day you can't say "but I already fulfilled that law, yesterday!" - the law is still in effect. And that's what Christ was saying there - he did not come to change the laws and the laws are still in effect.

The underlying reason he said this, of course, was that he was getting more and more pressure from the Pharisees who were worried about his growing followers; they thought that posed a threat to them and their believers. They were very legalistic and thus hewed very tightly to the laws of the Old Testament. So they were looking for ways to "trip him up" and get him arrested (they had enough political power to swing that.) They were always saying to him things like "why are you working on the Sabbath?" "You can't forgive sins - only God can do that!" They were looking, in other words, to "trip him up" - to get him to say that he didn't obey the laws, and/or that his followers didn't have to.

So the more likely reason Jesus said that was to not get arrested. (John the Baptist had already been arrested under a similar pretext, and was later put to death.)

The whole "well, he died and that fulfilled them" was concocted later by Christians who needed a way to explain what he said in a manner other than "Christ was scared of being arrested."

 

The difference with your example of speeding vs Christ's death is that Christ was the 'sacrificial lamb' upon whom sin was laid; His death completed the old laws insomuch as the punishment they demanded was laid on His head, so that the rest of humanity could be granted Grace; the intent, as I understand it, being that all punishment for eternity was laid upon Him.

Granted, this is a debate that has been waged by biblical scholars for far longer than either of us have been around, so... yeah; ultimately, I guess, we won't know the truth of the matter until the very end

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Right. But again, it doesn't work logically. If you speed a LOT, and get arrested and thrown into jail for a year, you cannot claim that you have "completed" the law by suffering the judgment of it, and the penalty associated with it. You may have "completed" your sentence. You did not "complete" the law. Even if every single person in the US was thrown in jail for a year under that law, the law would not be "completed."

Yes, I am aware that many religious types disagree. But I would respect them a lot more if they said "you know, a lot of the Bible just doesn't make sense. It's over 2000 years old, based mostly on oral traditions and been translated at least four times; what do you expect?" - rather than all the retconning attempts that have been going on since Nicaea.

 

I feel the same.
There is nothing worse than being unrealistic.
Very well put.
Alex

 

Sounds most odd.
A throw back to the animal sacrifice days I guess.

But really I find it difficult to understand why folk in the modern era accept that an entity, that by their own account created all that is, could be so strange and decide to do things this way.

Its a pity God did not hatch such a plan earlier rather than drown everyone in his first attempt to correct what I presume he saw as imperfection.

I really dont think any of it makes sense at all.
Alex

 

The difference being that Jesus was (at least according to some) sent by God for that explicit purpose - to fulfill and complete (and by extension, bring about the end of) the Old law.

The bigger question in all this, at least in my mind, is... what about those that died before Jesus... given that no mortal was capable of living up to the laws and expectations required to enter Heaven... were they just SOL?

Oh, there are certainly things in the Bible that make no sense... for example, the story of Jesus cursing a tree because it wouldn't bear fruit on command.

I... can only guess that's supposed to be an example of Jesus being an Asshole? I really don't get it.

 

Heh, I guess if it all made sense to us, we'd be just as divine?

 

However arguing about what JC said or meant to say rushes by addressing the claims associated with the story.
A claim that one is the Son of God is about as big a claim one could make and it could be expected that a God even in human form could have offerred more than some magician tricks to support his claim.
Flying about the place would be somewhat convincing and easily achievable if indeed one is God.
And if someone came before us today claiming to be God how would he be treated..treated being the key word as folk would consider him delusional and that he requires care.

I can understand folk imaging that a God exists but the made up stuff that follows makes the idea silly.

Believe there is a god but perhaps confine views to what is known and reliable..the good book may not qualify here.

Alex

 

Well if one accepts they dont understand something perhaps it would be honest to admit that one does not indeed know by "I just dont know" and if you want to present ideas as devine does that suggest you have no ability to comment ...it suggests one can not know.



However we try to analyse a story recorded many years after JC is supposed to have lived, a story handed along as heresay.

The sermon on the mount is taken as exactly what JC said and I find it impossible to accept anyone had the thought to memorise that sermon and ensure it was passed on "word for word".

We really dont know if there was a JC other than heresay and we have no records from a reporter of the day.
It is not as yhough a reporter attended the sermon on the mount and published the details of croud numbers and a word for word account.


I find it extraordinary that folk think the words they read and attributed to JC could not have been corrupted given the way they were passed on.

In any event all the talk lets us forget we have no evidence that JC was a real person and if he was that his apparent claim that he was God has anyway support.

Alex

 

Yes it depends on how you interpret his words.

I think what he was actually saying was...

Love your fellow man and turn the other cheek because JC although a human was in fact God at least his son and although he did not change the sabath law it no longer applies because of new stuff we just made up.

So although the law was not changed by JC it is there for all to not see.

I have a new respect for intellectually superior pigeons over folk who read stuff and interpret it opposite to its clear meaning ... a pigeon would never do that.

Alex

 

I suspect that you still think JC had nothing to say about the law and his determination not to change one single bit.
His words dont agree with your version so who do we follow to clear uo this matter?
Your belief or the words attributed to JC.

You got the OT, you have your God saying it is still law so why do you treat it as if it were not part of the deal?

I expect one would like to distance oneself from the endorsement of slavery, calls to kill various folk for minor things and the disgusting lack of respect for females...and such a desire is noble but you see you can not say the OT and NT are not a set and what is in the NT follows the OT.

If not then the ten commandments are out on your account.

I hope you are well, have a nice day☺
Alex

 

Right. When a Christian church creates a new interpretation/law/canonical belief it generally contradicts several other statements/writings that then have to be reconciled. It is oddly reminiscent of the hoops that the writers of superhero movies jump through to rationalize all the stuff in their movie that doesn't match what that character did in the last movie, or the comic books it is based on.

Luke: "You told me that Darth Vader betrayed and murdered my father!"

Obi-Wan: "Your father was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force. He ceased to be the Jedi Anakin Skywalker and became the Sith Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So, what I told you was true. From a certain point of view."

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

///
I did not post that in this thread.
I was told it was moved because this thread is the place for religious insults. By whom I do not know.

OOPS! I made a mistake. That was this is the place for MY religious insults.

<>

 

Retroactive continuity.
Retconning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity
Note that the first identified use of the unshortened term was by a theologian, talking about another theologian's work.

It's a major feature of Republican Party media campaigns.

They do historical revision, of course, but that's with regard to reality - the really entertaining stuff is when they retcon their own stream of fictions.