I had assumed the answer was yes, considered the fervency with which some self-proclaimed Christians, like Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, try to push the Ten Commandments into the public square. However, in the topic “Should theist fact claims be subjected . . .” in this forum, self-proclaimed spokesperson for God LilySmith says no, the law of Christ supersedes the law of Moses. Actually, she doesn’t quite say that, only that Christians don’t follow “all” Ten Commandments.
Believe it or not, there are more fundamental issues to address with her post, which is # 247. However, I did some research.
Here are links to Christian sites saying that Christians need not follow the Ten Commandments.
— http://www.gci.org/bible/torah/exodus2a
— Should Christians obey the Ten Commandments?: Christians and the Old Testament law | exploring the faith
Here are links to Christian sites saying that they must.
— http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/do-i-need-obey-ten-commandments
— Are the Ten Commandments still law for Christians?
The UCG site says that anyone who teaches that Christians need not follow the Ten Commandments “is in grave spiritual danger.”
Given that those might be the stakes - since at least one Christian believes it, therefore it could be true according to LilySmith’s “logic” - here are a couple of questions for Lily and any Christians who might be lurking.
Who is right, and on what basis; how sure are you? Are you sure enough to bet your soul; isn’t that exactly what you’re doing, according to other parts of your theology?
Why wouldn’t God clear the matter up definitively?
Why isn’t the above clear evidence of what we secularists have been saying it all along: that you guys just make up your answers as you go along, selectively choosing from and interpreting your “sacred” writings as you see fit? And why isn’t that good reason to throw the whole thing out and look for a more objective basis for your most central beliefs?
Lily, if you choose to comment here, it’s not an excuse for ignoring your complete self-contradiction and intellectual dishonesty on the other topic, mentioned above.
But see that’s the “beauty” of Christianity, and religion in general. Once you cut the ties to evidence, and rely on faith, anything goes. It becomes complete moral relativism and really depravity parading as moral certainty.
But see that's the "beauty" of Christianity, and religion in general. Once you cut the ties to evidence, and rely on faith, anything goes. It becomes complete moral relativism and really depravity parading as moral certainty.Very well put, Cuthbert. Lois
I agree. It’s sickness, labeled “health.”
Yes sad how people dont think before they decide thier world views.
But at the same time, maybe its a bit of a stretch to say that all Christians think like that.
For example, take Mike Licona (Evangelical Biblical scholar).
But he is interesting in how he actually uses historical and empirical evidence to TRY to support his claims.
I don’t think his conclusions are right (see his debate with Prof. Ehrman - YouTube), but he at least studies and tries to find proof for what he believes (even if those proofs are wrong.)
In contrast to other christians who insist they are right because “the holy ghost inspires them.”
With such diversity, it would be interesting to know what Christianity itself teaches.
...With such diversity, it would be interesting to know what Christianity itself teaches.I think what you mean is, it'd be interesting to see what Jesus himself taught. I have a feeling most Christians would be very surprised! They'd also be surprised to see him in person. Something tells me we'd hear a lot of "Dirty nappy headed A-rab" comments.
...With such diversity, it would be interesting to know what Christianity itself teaches.I think what you mean is, it'd be interesting to see what Jesus himself taught. I have a feeling most Christians would be very surprised! They'd also be surprised to see him in person. My understanding of the latest historical research is that there was no one version of Christianity to start with. This seems to be leading to stronger proof that there was no one person named Jesus. It was either stories adapted from other legends and told by a group of people then jelled into the early gospels, or a story that kept getting retold and modified. Either of these fit better with how stories were told at the time, as opposed to any kind of historical documentation that could have gone on. There is ample evidence for a variety of small Christian cults with differing beliefs during the first and second century. I've never quite understood how the theories are supported of exactly when the original works were written down. I know the earliest manuscripts we still have are mid 3rd century, but somehow they can date the originals. For me, this early history became less and less important as I learned more about it. The Christianity we know today is based on Byzantine versions and strengthened later by the crusades. This is the opposite of what peaceful Christians today want you to believe, but to me, if it wasn't for the militaristic, King supported version of Christianity it would be a footnote in history like zorastrianism.
I agree. It's sickness, labeled "health."Certainly the Christian story is a twisted sick one. Jesus tortured to save us. Amazing how the human mind can twist this into something wonderful. Stephen
I agree. It's sickness, labeled "health."Certainly the Christian story is a twisted sick one. Jesus tortured to save us. Amazing how the human mind can twist this into something wonderful. Stephen It seems unlikely to me that the original story tellers had that in mind. It certainly is not in the early manuscripts of Mark. Jesus just dies, and the message seems to be, go back to your homes and live with compassion. Those were dark times of an occupied nation. As the center of Rome shifted to the East and the original meaning of the stories mixed with Greek myths, the new religious leaders had to make it all fit the prophecies. That's when you get the Trinity.
I agree. It's sickness, labeled "health."Certainly the Christian story is a twisted sick one. Jesus tortured to save us. Amazing how the human mind can twist this into something wonderful. Stephen It seems unlikely to me that the original story tellers had that in mind. It certainly is not in the early manuscripts of Mark. Jesus just dies, and the message seems to be, go back to your homes and live with compassion. Those were dark times of an occupied nation. As the center of Rome shifted to the East and the original meaning of the stories mixed with Greek myths, the new religious leaders had to make it all fit the prophecies. That's when you get the Trinity. That may well be true but so what? If true, where does it leave the various theologies? And what would be the point of trying to reach a conclusion about what the people who promulgated the story intended it to mean? I can understand having the history in mind but what does it matter now what the original story-tellers intended?
That may well be true but so what? If true, where does it leave the various theologies? And what would be the point of trying to reach a conclusion about what the people who promulgated the story intended it to mean? I can understand having the history in mind but what does it matter now what the original story-tellers intended?I think it matters quite a bit. If indeed the original authors intended to claim witness to something extraordinary then we can examine their fact claims and determine them true or not and act accordingly. If we find they had political and social reasons for interpreting legends then we can better understand the forces that shaped our world. It leaves theology where it has always been, making claims with no evidence. Apply the same to the 10 commandments. The first few are just designed to put fear into hearts, half of the rest are thought crimes and the other half are common sense but difficult to legislate consistently. They, as well as the hundreds of other laws in the Bible, were early attempts at control. They may have created a society that was slightly more just than surrounding Kingdoms, but we've improved quite a bit on that since.
I do not take theology’s extraordinary claims seriously, so the intent of their makers is of no moment to me. That is true regarding the clamed extraordinary events of 2,000 years ago and the claimed divine authorship of the TC. These are instructive mainly as histories of peoples, psychology and social psychology.
And I totally get that, but I accept that the average human mind is not wired that way. This is not a function of intelligence, IMO, although intelligence can override the wiring. Or as this article suggests, religion is just an accident of evolution.
God is an accident]
It is impossible at this point in history to separate who is lying and who is at the affect of their culture and/or evolution. If you can’t agree with someone’s claim or their evidence then you don’t have much basis for reasonable discussion. Sometimes that’s all you can do. But many people are at the point where they are willing to ask if the Bible doesn’t have something real in it, then what is it and why have so many believed it for so long?
For some it’s just a matter of suggesting an alternative they haven’t thought of. Like C.S. Lewis’ trilemma, liar, lunatic or Lord. Intelligent people are taken in by that, but some can understand it is silly simply by suggesting the alternative of legend. If we are, as the article suggests, natural born dualists, then we will need an explanation for why god is not real just like we need an explanation for why the earth is round even though, at first glance, it appears flat. A little archeaology was all I needed to understand the Bible’s place in history. Others may take a little more convincing.
As the neurosciences advance, we are coming to recognize theology’s fact claims for what they are. We know why people invent stories, and we know the histories behind many fantastic tales, in the classic meaning of the word. More interesting than examining the content of the various fantasies is exploring what they tell us about who we are and have been. But to get there, we must look past the content of the stories - not ignore the content but see its mythical character. Taking those stories seriously puts the focus in the wrong place and directs down a pathway that has been proved to be a dead-end.
I think we are actually agreeing.
I know. Don’t act so shocked.
...With such diversity, it would be interesting to know what Christianity itself teaches.I think what you mean is, it'd be interesting to see what Jesus himself taught. I have a feeling most Christians would be very surprised! They'd also be surprised to see him in person. My understanding of the latest historical research is that there was no one version of Christianity to start with. This seems to be leading to stronger proof that there was no one person named Jesus. It was either stories adapted from other legends and told by a group of people then jelled into the early gospels, or a story that kept getting retold and modified. Either of these fit better with how stories were told at the time, as opposed to any kind of historical documentation that could have gone on. There is ample evidence for a variety of small Christian cults with differing beliefs during the first and second century. I've never quite understood how the theories are supported of exactly when the original works were written down. I know the earliest manuscripts we still have are mid 3rd century, but somehow they can date the originals. For me, this early history became less and less important as I learned more about it. The Christianity we know today is based on Byzantine versions and strengthened later by the crusades. This is the opposite of what peaceful Christians today want you to believe, but to me, if it wasn't for the militaristic, King supported version of Christianity it would be a footnote in history like zorastrianism. Most historian have accepted Jesus as a historical person. Prof Bart Ehrman has discussed this here http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/
As the neurosciences advance, we are coming to recognize theology's fact claims for what they are. We know why people invent stories, and we know the histories behind many fantastic tales, in the classic meaning of the word.In many cases this is true The problem lies, however, is when people (be they religious or athiest) start acting like a know-it-all without even basic studying. Regardless of whether one wants to speak for or against a religion, people should at least know what they are talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3w_v0aEX38
In many cases this is true The problem lies, however, is when people (be they religious or athiest) start acting like a know-it-all without even basic studying. Regardless of whether one wants to speak for or against a religion, people should at least know what they are talking about.I.J. You should really read what the mythicists are contending first, e.g. Price and Carrier's books on the mythical Jesus. I don't completely buy into their thesis, but it's worth a look. I've read reviews and rebuttals to Ehrman's books but haven't carved out the time to get into the books yet. BTW, I'm reading Aslan's book "No God but God". Are you familiar with it? Cap't Jack
Most historian have accepted Jesus as a historical person. Prof Bart Ehrman has discussed this here http://ehrmanblog.org/fuller-reply-to-richard-carrier/"Scientific consensus" is a tricky term and even when there is a consensus, it can be difficult to communicate. In this case a simple statement of what "most" historians accept is inadequate. First of all, what exactly do they accept? Not much. They accept a person existed, although the name may be wrong and that person was crucified and about 20 verses from the Bible are attributed to him. I am following Richard Carrier's work closely and he has reviewed the consensus and claims that it is weak. That is, the work that has been done is mostly out-dated, from before 1950, and that it was not well done. Obviously that is one person, not a consensus, but I'm looking forward to his work and how it is received.