Christians Who Deny the Veracity of the Old Testament

[Politesse]

For my two bob contribution today I'll say the word "faith" is often conflated with justified belief or trust, which unlike faith, are based on evidence.

I'm sure you couldn't have any ulterior motive for defining faith in such a fashion.

 

[DBT]

For my two bob contribution today I'll say the word "faith" is often conflated with justified belief or trust, which unlike faith, are based on evidence.

I'm sure you couldn't have any ulterior motive for defining faith in such a fashion.

I have no motive apart from pointing out that such equivocation is common.

 

[Politesse]

For my two bob contribution today I'll say the word "faith" is often conflated with justified belief or trust, which unlike faith, are based on evidence.

I'm sure you couldn't have any ulterior motive for defining faith in such a fashion.

I have no motive apart from pointing out that such equivocation is common.

Disagreement over a definition is not equivocation.

 

[skepticalbip]

I have no motive apart from pointing out that such equivocation is common.

Disagreement over a definition is not equivocation.

Disagreeing over a definition? Are you creating your own language? I generally look to a dictionary for the accepted definition.

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

That looks damned close to "DBT's definition". Although I have generally heard faith as meaning strong belief even if in spite of contrary evidence.

 

[DBT]

I have no motive apart from pointing out that such equivocation is common.

Disagreement over a definition is not equivocation.

There is something that defines the word 'faith.' There is something that distinguishes faith from trust or hope. Hope itself may be broken down into reasonable hope: that something is indeed likely to happen based on evidence and probability...and hope that is based on nothing more than a desire for something to happen, which turns hope into faith. 'John has faith that his wife will pull through against all odds'

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

There are Gods laws and covenants and then there are local governing laws.

That's a mighty convenient retroactive superimposition of the separation of Church and State that only arose theoretically in America and then only in the comparatively recent history.

 

[Politesse]

Disagreeing over a definition? Are you creating your own language? I generally look to a dictionary for the accepted definition.

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

That looks damned close to "DBT's definition". Although I have generally heard faith as meaning strong belief even if in spite of contrary evidence.

I didn't mean to suggest that DBT had invented the term, but it obviously was not the definition either I or Sarpedon were using in our conversation. If DBT and I were arguing down in the Arts & Media about whether the bridge segment in "Take Five" adds anything to the piece musically or whether it is just a cheap set of fifths to ramp up energy, would it make sense for you to butt in and go "I am sick and tired of people equivocating about bridges. Bridges are physical structures that cross a river, not a metaphorical references to a break in the melody! Jazz musicians are so dishonest!!!!"

You have the relevant definition, the one we were actually discussing, in your post there.

 

[Learner]

There are Gods laws and covenants and then there are local governing laws.

That's a mighty convenient retroactive superimposition of the separation of Church and State that only arose theoretically in America and then only in the comparatively recent history.

Not convenient enough it seems, for you to get the logical-sense aspect to these types of laws . For example my "local governing laws" are different from yours, despite if you were also a believer of the same faith? Local-laws always change, varying between locations,local traditions & customs in various time periods.

Simply meaning, Gods laws never change ... only local laws do. Your US constitution etc. is not applicable to me in the UK etc..etc.. so why would the old Jewish local laws apply? (only God laws apply everywhere to believers)

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

so why would the old Jewish local laws apply? (only God laws apply everywhere to believers)

Because they weren't "local" laws; they were and are all God's laws. That's what "the Law" refers to. God's laws. That's why it's so ridiculous, but of course it's understandable that your cognitive dissonance would not allow you to see them in that light, hence your retroactive superimposition of modern constructs that did not exist in those days.

I tell you what, can you quote chapter and verse of the OT that says, "These are just local laws, not God's law" or even words to that effect? I've never seen this dodge before. Thanks.

 

[Learner]

Well I'm going to dodge you for a bit and pay some bills.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well I'm going to dodge you for a bit and pay some bills.

 

[DBT]

Disagreeing over a definition? Are you creating your own language? I generally look to a dictionary for the accepted definition.

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

That looks damned close to "DBT's definition". Although I have generally heard faith as meaning strong belief even if in spite of contrary evidence.

I didn't mean to suggest that DBT had invented the term, but it obviously was not the definition either I or Sarpedon were using in our conversation. If DBT and I were arguing down in the Arts & Media about whether the bridge segment in "Take Five" adds anything to the piece musically or whether it is just a cheap set of fifths to ramp up energy, would it make sense for you to butt in and go "I am sick and tired of people equivocating about bridges. Bridges are physical structures that cross a river, not a metaphorical references to a break in the melody! Jazz musicians are so dishonest!!!!"

You have the relevant definition, the one we were actually discussing, in your post there.

My remark was not necessarily aimed at anything that was said, just pointing out that equivocation can happen, and often does happen.

 

[Politesse]

My remark was not necessarily aimed at anything that was said, just pointing out that equivocation can happen, and often does happen.

LOL I'll have to remember that one.

 

[DBT]

My remark was not necessarily aimed at anything that was said, just pointing out that equivocation can happen, and often does happen.

LOL I'll have to remember that one.

Interpretation of remarks also being a source of confusion in online debates and discussions.....

 

[steve_bank]

I know it's pointless debating Christians but sometimes I just can't help myself. One issue I often come across is the denial of the Old Testament's relevance and veracity on the basis that the New Testament replaced it, thus with a wave of the hand avoiding having to explain the lunacy of the Old Testament.

What would your reply be in such a situation?

Edit for clarification:
When I say 'veracity' I mean in the Christian sense. The actual veracity of the bible is not the intended discussion point.

I think it is more correct to say Christians belove based on a gospel passage that the coming of JC fulfilled the Old Covenant, or Mosaic Law which was replaced by a New Covent for all people not just Jews, ie the New Testament.

All Christians are not alike. Some are literalists some see it as metaphor and allegory while believes the supernatural Jesus.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It's such a cozy, stttrrretchable faith that adherents get divorced en masse, even though JC forbade divorce except for adultery; swear oaths tho' he apparently told them not to; don't celebrate Passover as he did on the last full day of his life; don't let people steal from them, although that is the burden of Luke 6:30; don't suffer to be slapped and abused; don't give to beggars whatever they ask; they also fornicate like nutria, because this is America, but don't seem to associate this with sin (of course all of these are generalities, but pretty easy to observe and even quantify, especially in the Bible Belt, aka The New Jerusalem.)

 

[Gun Nut]

I know it's pointless debating Christians but sometimes I just can't help myself. One issue I often come across is the denial of the Old Testament's relevance and veracity on the basis that the New Testament replaced it, thus with a wave of the hand avoiding having to explain the lunacy of the Old Testament.

What would your reply be in such a situation?

Edit for clarification:
When I say 'veracity' I mean in the Christian sense. The actual veracity of the bible is not the intended discussion point.

I think it is more correct to say Christians belove based on a gospel passage that the coming of JC fulfilled the Old Covenant, or Mosaic Law which was replaced by a New Covent for all people not just Jews, ie the New Testament.

All Christians are not alike. Some are literalists some see it as metaphor and allegory while believes the supernatural Jesus.

My favorite Jewish Mother (of my closest friend) says of the New Testament, "Anyone can write a sequel".

 

[Politesse]

My favorite Jewish Mother (of my closest friend) says of the New Testament, "Anyone can write a sequel".

Ah, but can everyone write an unauthorized fanfic that outsells the original? The New Testament is the Fifty Shades of religious literature.

 

[Gun Nut]

My favorite Jewish Mother (of my closest friend) says of the New Testament, "Anyone can write a sequel".

Ah, but can everyone write an unauthorized fanfic that outsells the original? The New Testament is the Fifty Shades of religious literature.

I think the point was just that it is easier to build on something in existence than to materialize something completely out of thin air.

 

[Politesse]

My favorite Jewish Mother (of my closest friend) says of the New Testament, "Anyone can write a sequel".

Ah, but can everyone write an unauthorized fanfic that outsells the original? The New Testament is the Fifty Shades of religious literature.

I think the point was just that it is easier to build on something in existence than to materialize something completely out of thin air.

It takes finesse to eclipse* your source material though.

*pun intended.