The New Testament as a guide for living for atheists

[No Robots]

Yeah, dude, I'm pious as fuck.

Good to hear.

Please, sir, I beg of you. Will you give me one percent of your gross income for the rest of your life?

(See Matthew 5:42 if you have any questions.)

Sorry, dude, but I'm poor (in spirit).

I think you're not as faithful to the NT as you claim to be, or that you expect everyone else to be.

And I doubt you have absolutely zero income. I'm only asking for one percent of it, which Jesus tells us that you should not refuse.

What was that parable about the Widow's mite?

I'm afraid your not entering into the spirit of the thing, but just playing your reductive, critical and cynical games. The whole NT is about Jesus confronting people who are trying to catch him in hypocrisy and self-contradiction. And what does he have to say about this sort of people?

 

[James Brown]

Dunno. "Believe in me or else go to Hell"?

 

[No Robots]

More like, "You are in hell. I know the way out."

 

[TomC]

The whole NT is about Jesus confronting people who are trying to catch him in hypocrisy and self-contradiction. And what does he have to say about this sort of people?

Nobody knows.
All we've got to go on are the later writings of followers, winnowed by centuries of the elite reshaping them to suit their own purposes.
Tom

 

[No Robots]

I'm sorry, Tom, but you have no idea how transmission operated in the Jewish communities of the time. For comparison, take the Talmud, orally transmitted into the 6th century.

 

[lostone]

More like, "You are in hell. I know the way out."

Hell is your way out.

 

[steve_bank]

The Hell you say! Hell no we won't gp!

I don't think the OT Hebrews had a clear definition of a hell. Not a place where it is hot under constant torment presided over by Satan.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003463733803500304?journalCode=raeb

The Old Testament word for the abode of the dead is Sheol. It is derived, as most scholars think, from a word meaning hollow. To the Hebrew mind Sheol was simply the state or abode of the dead. It was not the same as the grave, though it was so translated in some of the older versions.

I believe the Christian images of hell evolved under the RCC influenced by Dante's Inferno.

 

[steve_bank]

I'm sorry, Tom, but you have no idea how transmission operated in the Jewish communities of the time. For comparison, take the Talmud, orally transmitted into the 6th century.

An Ysraeli academic wrote a book on the mdern muth modern Isteal is based on.

The myth is that Jews ocher the last 2000yeras have a continuous consistent culture going back to the orgiastic tribes.

In the time of Jesus there was a dispute between the Jerusalem Jews and Jews in Syria over who wre the real descendants and inheritors of the alleged tribes. Similar to the Muslim Shite Shia split over authenticity.

There is small groups of Jews in Israel who live there but reject the legitimacy of modern Israel because it was created by people not god.

If you look at Jews in Israel and outside you will find culturally and religiously they are not monolithic and vary much like American Christians from liberal to moderate to ultra conservative. All with shades of variations on interpretations.

The myth of the modern Israeli Zionist nationalists is that they represent a monolithic unchanged line back to the first Jews and certainly Israel 2000 years ago.

The point being the idea that there is an authentic true Christianity today that goes back to a Jesus and the first 'Christians' who were by the way Jews has no foundation or merit.

The basis of the assumed Christian authority by the RCC is a claim the popes are in a line back to Peter.

 

[Learner]

Word for word ... isn't clear unless you know of the bible. Getting the context is what counts.

Do you think that God, giving this commandment, is fine with murder? Or perhaps it's relative, murder is fine in one period in history, but not another?

Which, if so, makes the moral values given by God relative to time, place and circumstance?

Are you really expecting me to agree with YOUR view as you understand them? As bilby said of me, you are also contradicting God.

Context doesn't transform what is clearly written and meant into something you want it to mean.

'Thou shalt not kill' means precisely what it says. It is not what I say, it is what is written and what that represents in terms of a moral standard.

I agree with the meaning, I don't agree with YOUR take about the morality of God.

The question of morality lies in what is said about murder or killing, ie, do not commit murder, do not kill, even while ordering murder and engaging in it, killing the first born of Egypt, etc, where a value - thou shalt not kill - is expressed and broken by God.

I see. So it's not in the perspective as in, let's say, when we see a judge sentence a murderer to 'lethal injection' even though 'killing is against the law', or to send soldiers to war which may require deaths on both sides of the conflict, even though 'killing is against the law' on both sides. People often in situations defending themselves resulting in the attacker being harm or killed.

It seems there are acceptions to this moral concept, which otherwise would be going against the 'law against killing' moral code, which oddly enough... some killings are often seen to be morally justifiable today.

 

[DBT]

Word for word ... isn't clear unless you know of the bible. Getting the context is what counts.

Do you think that God, giving this commandment, is fine with murder? Or perhaps it's relative, murder is fine in one period in history, but not another?

Which, if so, makes the moral values given by God relative to time, place and circumstance?

Are you really expecting me to agree with YOUR view as you understand them? As bilby said of me, you are also contradicting God.

Context doesn't transform what is clearly written and meant into something you want it to mean.

'Thou shalt not kill' means precisely what it says. It is not what I say, it is what is written and what that represents in terms of a moral standard.

I agree with the meaning, I don't agree with YOUR take about the morality of God.

The question of morality lies in what is said about murder or killing, ie, do not commit murder, do not kill, even while ordering murder and engaging in it, killing the first born of Egypt, etc, where a value - thou shalt not kill - is expressed and broken by God.

I see. So it's not in the perspective as in, let's say, when we see a judge sentence a murderer to 'lethal injection' even though 'killing is against the law', or to send soldiers to war which may require deaths on both sides of the conflict, even though 'killing is against the law' on both sides. People often in situations defending themselves resulting in the attacker being harm or killed.

It seems there are acceptions to this moral concept, which otherwise would be going against the 'law against killing' moral code, which oddly enough... some killings are often seen to be morally justifiable today.

Defense is not the same as instigating a killing or a murder. The issue here is the contradiction between the commandment and its moral values and how God acts contrary to the commandment and its moral values.

The bible defines Love and its moral implications. The bible also describes God acting contrary to the very same definition of love and its moral values, which presents a contradiction between the nature of God, love and morality as described in the bible, and the actions of God that are contrary to the commandment and the terms of love and morality as described in the bible.

For instance;
''Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.' 1 Corinthians 13;

As opposed to:

''Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ - 1 Samuel 25:3

 

[steve_bank]

Learner does what Christians do, lead us down a rabbit hole away from the central issue of biblical immorality in our modern perspective.

Solomon and David appear to have had no morality and ethics. The ancient Hebrews were as aggressive and warlike as any others. In the end they always lost to greater powers. Theye ancient Hebrews were nver peaceful victims.

I have only seen this question broached once in public media. If Jews were the chosen peole of a god, what are they doing wrog such that god does not come to theri rescue?

 

[No Robots]

First off, the Jews have survived every slaver empire they have encountered: Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Macedonian, Roman and Germanic. In fact, they have not only survived these empires but have converted them, at least nominally, to Judaism under the names of Christianity and Islam.

Second, destiny is process. The world is becoming Jewish and it will ultimately achieve this destiny:

Moses , the Prophets and the Bible stand upon a historic basis: they clearly saw evolution, history and destiny, and they pointed out the time when Jehovah will write his law into the heart of every human being, and every one will know Jehovah and live according to the light of Jehovah, and no one will any longer have to have rulers, leaders and teachers, but all will be equal and govern themselves .—Harry Waton, The Philosophy of Spinoza.

Ultimately, those devoted to science will recognize that all science is embodied in Spinoza’s work, and that, in the words of Harry Waton, “what is truly great in Spinoza’s philosophy is only a more explicit formulation of what was already contained in the Bible.”

 

[DBT]

That's quite a creative interpretation of history and science.

 

[No Robots]

Science today has rendered itself completely useless in the sense that Spinoza says, “whatsoever in the sciences does not serve to promote our object will have to be rejected as useless,” the object being “knowledge of the union existing being the mind and the whole of nature.”

 

[DBT]

If the role of science is to help us to better understand the world around us, its place in the universe and discover and develop technologies, it has been a spectacularly successful enterprise.

 

[No Robots]

Science has hit a wall. It cannot unlock the nature of man until it pursues "knowledge of the union existing being the mind and the whole of nature.”

 

[Tigers!]

For instance;
''Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.' 1 Corinthians 13;

As opposed to:

''Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ - 1 Samuel 25:3

If I remember the context of what God, through Samuel, said, the command was given because the Amalekites were an existential threat to the Jewish nation. The Amalekites attcked the Jews as they travelled through the desert and attacked them many times since. God was protecting his people through the elimination of their enemies.

 

[DBT]

For instance;
''Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.' 1 Corinthians 13;

As opposed to:

''Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’ - 1 Samuel 25:3

If I remember the context of what God, through Samuel, said, the command was given because the Amalekites were an existential threat to the Jewish nation. The Amalekites attcked the Jews as they travelled through the desert and attacked them many times since. God was protecting his people through the elimination of their enemies.

How does 'context' morally justify a 'kill them all' order?

How does kill them all relate to "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres...?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The Hell you say! Hell no we won't gp!

I don't think the OT Hebrews had a clear definition of a hell. Not a place where it is hot under constant torment presided over by Satan.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/003463733803500304?journalCode=raeb

The Old Testament word for the abode of the dead is Sheol. It is derived, as most scholars think, from a word meaning hollow. To the Hebrew mind Sheol was simply the state or abode of the dead. It was not the same as the grave, though it was so translated in some of the older versions.

I believe the Christian images of hell evolved under the RCC influenced by Dante's Inferno.

A firey hell where wrong doers are tortured are from the NT. See Matthew 25 and Revelation 19 for examples.


Revelation 20
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Never mind the NT for atheists. Maybe Trump, and Faux Noise hosts need the guidance of the NT instead.

 

[James Brown]

First off, the Jews have survived every slaver empire they have encountered: Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Macedonian, Roman and Germanic. In fact, they have not only survived these empires but have converted them, at least nominally, to Judaism under the names of Christianity and Islam.

Second, destiny is process. The world is becoming Jewish and it will ultimately achieve this destiny:

So... so we should all convert to Judaism? I thought this thread was about the New Testament.