Atheists..... throwing the baby out with the bath water ?

by snare&racket 403 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tec

  Of course it wasn't that way from the beginning. But neither was the law of Moses. So it had been that way for thousands of years. God did nothing to set the record straight, if it was wrong.

  He sent prophets to turn the people around. Those prophets were scorned and killed. Not listened to. One of them, Jeremiah, even said:

  "How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

  And then He sent Christ... who also said woe to the scribes and teachers of the law. Who is the Truth. So God did set the record straight. Yet, people still look to the law.

  True. I suppose it is only a question of priorities. Divorce ranked higher on his list than rape. And I translate virgin to mean any woman or child that had not had sex. So thinking it could have included child rape is particularly distasteful. But I get it---he worried about divorce.

  No, THEY worried about it. Everything Christ taught and did is not written down. (though that... that all he taught and did is not written down... IS written down)

  Perhaps rape and child rape was not a priority for them either

  Perhaps. That would be more accurate than saying it was not a priority for Christ. He DID say to let the little children come to him and that the kingdom of heaven belong to such as them. Do not hinder them. And if anyone causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better if he had a millstone around his neck... (can't remember the wording); see that you do not look down on one of these little ones for their angels in heaven always see the face of my father in heaven.

  Children sound pretty important to him.

  Of course, another thing is that the Israelites knew that rape was a crime. Seems strange to me that they would ask about whether or not their penalty for a crime was good enough or too harsh.

  Since there is no record of this other law he referenced, we cannot discuss it.

  But we can discuss Jeremiah 8:8 and what that means. We can discuss Christ being the truth... and looking to Him and what He taught for answers; rather than going through every writing with a fine-tooth comb and epecting a specific answer for each thing. When if we just listen TO Christ, we have those answers.

  I asked for what your precedent was for this:

  What is your precident that He was introducing a new way instead of correcting the misunderstanding and misapplications of the original way?

  Can you tell me?

  Also, since I have answered all of your questions, do you think you want to take a stab at the one I asked? I'll reword it to make it personal.

  If you have had a shadow of truth for the first half of your life (some mistake/some truth), but you know that for the second half of your life you will be given the full truth... do you still listen to the shadow once you know the full truth? Or do you simply listen to the truth?

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  N.drew

  Matthew 10:34

  "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

  The word here to focus on imo is "bring". It has the sense of carelessly casting (like scraps to the dogs).

  http://concordances.org/greek/balein_906.htm
• 

  tec

  So Tec, I'm curious - why would Jesus say in order to follow him you must hate your mother, father etc. if he wanted it to be interpreted? That's a black and white statement and he wasn't quoted as qualifiying that statement and prefaced it by saying this: “Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household". It's possible to twist this to mean something else but it doesn't change the fact that if you believe he said it then he meant it, no?

  He said a lot of things that a lot of people would or could not hear.

  And it is not a black and white statement when he also says to honor your mother and father, and he also says to love your neighbor and your enemy.

  And every prayer of yours has been answered? Every one? Really?

  Yes. Really.

  I think it gets a wee bit dangerous when you try to explain that you believe some parts of the bible based on Christ and can discard other parts based on Christ because it leads people like me to pick that apart a little.

  Don't know what I've discarded based on Christ. I did say that some things I do not understand the meaning of... but that is not the same as discarding something or bluffing it out that I know something that I do not know.

  Oh, unless you meant I discard some parts of the bible... based on what Christ said about them. And believe some parts of the bible... based on what Christ said about them. In that case, pick away ;)

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  poopsiecakes

  Yes, Jesus contradicted himself, you're right.
• 

  NewChapter

  Can you tell me? Jesus said he came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. He was teaching a new attitude. Yes, he condemned the pharisees, but he condemned them for adding more weight to an already incredibly heavy load, and for stressing less important laws over principals. Which is not to say he didn't agree with the law, he indicated over and over and over that he did, but he was also very concerned that people also carried out the spirit behind the law. So the law did indeed allow for divorce. Jesus was not actually editing this. The law allowed it. And the reason, he said, it was allowed was because god knew the people were weak, or stubborn or something like that. So he tolerated it. At no time did he indicate the law was wrong on this matter, he just explained the decision behind it. He would tolerate it no more----new way. But while in place, it was the righteous way. Like my daughter. When she was 3 years old, I tolerated much more whining than I did when she was 10. I wasn't going backward and saying my old way was wrong---but moving forward there was a new way. When she was 3, she couldn't use pointy scissors. That was my law, and it was absolutely right. When she was 10, she was allowed to use scissors. That was my law, and it was still absolutely right. I was not of the opinion that I had been wrong, but of the opinion that time and context had changed. Those prophets were scorned and killed. Not all of them though. Some of them got through. Who would ever doubt the lesson that Daniel taught them? He died quite old. But his concern was the rape of children and forced marriages either. It was idolatry. Like I said---priorities. It is impossible for me to accept that this god who claims to love so very much, couldn't have taken a few seconds to add a sentence or two. But there were much more important things happening. That would be more accurate than saying it was not a priority for Christ. So are you saying that Christ was limited to only addressing the priorities of those around him? He couldn't start a subject on his own? Something couldn't have been important enough to give a little mention? Think of how comforting that would have been for the victims left in the wake of his father's law. But hey, they didn't ask-----------so his obligation ended there. I suppose it was a woman's issue---and I don't suppose the women were accustomed to questioning their Jewish teachers. Too bad for them. If you have had a shadow of truth for the first half of your life (some mistake/some truth), but you know that for the second half of your life you will be given the full truth... do you still listen to the shadow once you know the full truth? Or do you simply listen to the truth? I did have a shadow of the truth for half my life. And in this second half I have found the truth. I still listen, in the sense that I will discuss it, but no, I'll never return to believing. I know the truth of the matter, and hopefully have shed all shadows of religion, or belief, or superstition,
• 

  N.drew

  Please explain to us how Jesus contradicted himself. And do you mean in your mind? Or really? Do you believe Jesus is a real person? Do you believe his words are preserved? Or are you just making a bad joke because your in a bad mood? Poopsiecakes?
• 

  N.drew

  NewChapter please provide the scripture of your contention. You know it in English, but what does it really say? Do you know?
• 

  NewChapter

  Too tired NDrew. I'm sure you can find them---I didn't make this up. Or did I state something inaccurately---

  NC
• 

  N.drew

  Something couldn't have been important enough to give a little mention? Think of how comforting that would have been for the victims left in the wake of his father's law.

  How can you claim to love evidence so much and let this pass as he never SAID anything about it. Maybe the words have been lost.
• 

  poopsiecakes

  I think Tec pointed out the contradiction already...but hey it's all good. And I'm not in a bad mood, just edgey. :)

  I'm actually not sure whether Jesus really existed or was an amalgam of a general feeling in factions of the populace at the time. If he did exist, I don't believe he was the way the gospels describe him. So no, I don't believe his words were preserved either I guess.