Relevance of Old Testament in Modern World

[Heraclitus]

I'm not an atheist.

I hope you aren't Christian then, cause there is that pesky matter of Jesus saying that he hasn't come to replace the old ways. Actually I can see you imagining it away... but then why don't you just go Scientology?



If you take your religion to be inspired by God you can't really logically be a Muslim, Christian or even Jew and consider your own homosexuality anything but a vice. It shows much more intelectual integrity to either go for another religion or esentially espuse Deist beliefs (which you can decorate with Christian fluf if you like- much like the founding fathers of your country).

[Ben Kenobi]

So then for homosexual intimacy, all punishments are taken and fulfilled along with all other proscriptions in the OT because of Christ's ultimate sacrifice.

No, because the NT is very strict here. The prohibition of homosexual activity is repeated throughout the NT. The punishment now, instead of stoning in this world, is eternal separation from God in the next.

So it's up to you Mr. Fun. Are you willing to risk your soul?

[Jon Miller]

So is lying. We are all forfeit on our own.

Christ forgives us if we repent though.

JM
(Homosexuality is mentioned only once in the new testament, lying/etc is mentioned many more times.)

[Chemical Ollie]

MrFun, for one the OT commandments is in Christian theology divided into at least two categories, 1) the commandments given to the Jews in that time, culture and context and 2) the commandments that has universal relevance.

Further, all punishments are taken and fullfilled in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, so those are ruled out by default.

According to the ten commandments, it's still OK to own slaves, but not to be envy on your neighbours slaves.

Don't the ten commandments count at the ones of universal relevance?

[Jon Miller]

According to the NT it is OK to own slaves too... so don't lose your point.

But look at the message of the NT (and the OT). Does having a slave really fit with such a message? The point of the NT is that people change from within and than their outside will treat people with respect/etc.

And at the time, slave would be a lot more similar to employee now.

JM
(One of the main things that many of the OT prophets preached against was that Israel didn't treat their slaves justly/etc. They were suppose to treat them well and free them in less than 7 years, etc.)

[MrFun]

I hope you aren't Christian then, cause there is that pesky matter of Jesus saying that he hasn't come to replace the old ways. Actually I can see you imagining it away... but then why don't you just go Scientology?



If you take your religion to be inspired by God you can't really logically be a Muslim, Christian or even Jew and consider your own homosexuality anything but a vice. It shows much more intelectual integrity to either go for another religion or esentially espuse Deist beliefs (which you can decorate with Christian fluf if you like- much like the founding fathers of your country).

There are many Christian denominations, sects or other churches that do not view homosexual intimacy as a sin. One example is the Metropolitan Community Church, which I belong to. This is how I'm able to be a faithful Christian and still positively identify myself as a gay man.

Other Christian denominations that affirm gays and lesbians in a positive way, is Presbyterians. Although, they have split among themselves on this and other issues.

To say that it's impossible to be faithful to one's belief and still be positively gay or lesbian is to be ignorant or narrow-minded about the diversity of religions and their denominations.

[KrazyHorse]

Just because you're part of a group of people who got together and decided to ignore the Word doesn't make you any more of a Christian than if you'd just gone ahead and ignored it on your own.

[Kuciwalker]

You're assuming it "scales up," ie that bigger miracles would, in fact, produce bigger conversions. The very same gospel accounts that tell us of the miracles describe the many Jewish authority figures who simply discount them as the work of Satan.

Compare the mindset of many modern atheists, which is such that it would be literally impossible for God to prove His existence to them: given that rational modern people always go for the simplest explanation, and the ambiguity and opportunity for bias inherent in the concept of "simple," God can only win if He presents a proof that absolutely cannot be explained by anything else. And that is not possible, due to the power of even the dullest human imagination.

If all the stars in the sky rearranged themselves to form the words "yo, I exist-YHWH," a far simpler explanation than an invisible, omnipotent being would be that some secret organization is messing with the atmosphere and our satellites, or aliens are doing it, or it's energy beams messing up the visual cortex of our brains. Because "simple," in the right hands, can mean anything or nothing, or both.

There are actually mathematically rigorous formulations of Occam's razor that do not suffer the weakness you describe.

[Jon Miller]

I think it is obvious that that is incorrect, as it would suggest that Pi doesn't exist/can't be used while using it obviously makes things simpler/is correct?

Or am I misunderstanding how it would be applied as Occam's Razor.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

I think it is obvious that that is incorrect, as it would suggest that Pi doesn't exist/can't be used while using it obviously makes things simpler/is correct?

Or am I misunderstanding how it would be applied as Occam's Razor.

JM

WTF are you talking about.

[KrazyHorse]

Jon, any number relating diameter to circumference which ISN'T pi fails on other grounds. Occam's razor chooses between theories which are justifiable experimentally.

Not to mention the fact that there exist descriptions for pi which are finite (and actually very short) in length...

http://functions.wolfram.com/Constants/Pi/06/01/01/

[KrazyHorse]

WTF are you talking about.

Good response. Succinct, expresses the necessary thought.

[Jon Miller]

I know that there are good descriptions. I am pointing out that if you use this definition of string test, it would fail.

Point being that just because something has an infinite description doesn't mean that it is valid to not consider it.

JM
(Pi might not have been the best example, it is just the first that came to mind.)

[KrazyHorse]

Pi doesn't only have infinite descriptions. I just gave you some examples of ways it can be described in less than a line.

[Jon Miller]

I know.

You are missing the point. There exists things which are not computable. Pi was a bad example of it.

Using this test would fail non-computable things always.

As such, it is not a good test when considering things that are not computable.

We were talking about comparing explanations for events. And using 'simpler' as a test. This definition of simpler only works for a subset of things. Thus it is not a tool that can be used to define 'simpler' in every situation and is obviously not clearly defined when dealing with God.

JM