IAP Political Forum

Are the 10 Commandaments a vital part of Christian doctrine? Are they "Christian Law", and if so how are Christians supposed to decide which Old Testament laws apply?


It would seem that Jesus either fulfilled the law thus erasing their validity, or they all are still a part of the faith.

They are part of christian doctrine, however they do not define the limits of christian doctrine.  It is more closely aligned with the words of Jesus himself.

The funny thing about the 10 commandments is that Christians don't really need to follow them. Lets not forget that all men sin and some of those sins break the  the commandments. Its ok though because Jesus will forgive you of your sins.

The only think you really have to do in Christianity is believe in the Holy Spirit. Everything else is ok as long as you believe. All the death row prisoners that take Jesus into their life get to go to heaven. Jesus will forgive them for molesting and murdering children. After all, we're all sinners. What he won't forgive is an atheist like me. I'm going to burn in hell for eternity. Nice system huh?

The forgiveness of sin, I believe, tends to be dependent on you never carrying out that sin again.  I suggest you read Pauls admonition to the Corinthians in which he discusses those who simply "believe".

OK fine, you can only molest and murder a child once.

Then will you accept that this is part of christian doctrine?


Passage Leviticus 20:13:

    13 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.



Surely this is part of Christian Doctrine?

Lets just ignore that part because its not convenient.

This seems a little disingenuous.

The OP was on the 10 Commandments and Christian Doctrine...the response was that they DO NOT define the limits of Christian Doctrine....

Then you move on from the 10 Commandments to Leviticus...

Are we going to go line by line...verse by verse of the Old Testament...and whether or not it is a part of Christian Doctrine?

There is much in the Old Testament that was superceded by the Grace of Christ.

Seems the OP question would be more appropriate for one who uses the Old Testament as the primary source for their faith.

Which 10 Commandments? The first ones, or the ones Moses made up off the top of his head, claiming they were identical to the old ones (which they weren't, in fact)?

my point is that Christians cherry pick which doctrine they follow, based upon the modern interpretation of morality. the 10 commandments are still mainstream faith because they still align with a modern version of morality, whereas the quote from leviticus was accepted doctrine during the 16th century, based upon the view of morality at that time.


My point is to show that our interpretation of the bible is what is important, it is not the bible. It is us that create morality, not mythology from the 15th century.

Thank you.

We have judges that apply this to the Constitution.

I guess ones interpretation of the written word is important in any important text.

still no one has answered my question to any satisfaction.


IF the 10 commandments are part of Christian doctrine, which more Christians will openly accept, then so too must be Leviticus 20:13.

Jesus either wiped clean the requirements of the Old Testament, or they still apply. Either way you cannot have one without the other and maintain Christian doctrine.


The only other option is to show where Jesus tells us which passages apply.

Are you sure those are the only options?

do you have another?

I've got lots, you just seem so certain... I wanted to make sure I understood your expert view.

Whenever I read scripture, it seems clear that the writers made a distinction between good moral principles and the judgments that the Israeli's were to apply for not following them.  Fulfillment of law and contracts doesn't also make the moral principle not apply does it?

What do you mean by "IF?"

You sound uncertain.

The 10 Commandments are Jewish Doctrine, are they not?


So...the ONLY options are black and white?

Lets take a law...say murder, OK?

Commit one in Texas...commit one in California.

Same crime....same sentence?

Hardly.

Texas...you die.

California...you live.

Seems to me, it is more than "black and white"


Only to those who limit themselves to a "black and white" philosophy.

Thats because the Bible is "black and white".


It makes the claim that it is the word of God, this is either true or it is not.

The 10 commandments and Leviticus 20:13 are similar in at least 2 ways, they are laws suposedly given to man by God and they are within the Old Testament(generally considered a part of Christianity). So logically one would asume that Leviticus 20:13 should be followed by those that believe in the Bible.



Am I wrong? If so please tell me exactly how a Christian is supposed to interpret these two "God given" moral laws.

The "Bible" is 66 books....Old Testament="Jewish Doctrine"   New Testament="Christian Doctrine"


When "the Lord said" or similar is written...descriptions are not necessarily the "word of God"....God did not "speak" the geneology in Numbers.....


"Principles" in the Old Testament are applicable to Christianity..."History" in the Old Testament are applicable to Christianity...Every single word in the Old Testament is not, to believe so would be you do not understand the saving Grace of Christ...I tried an analogy earlier, but it apparently was ignored.

Murder=Law

Texas=Old testament=Leviticus=Death (Although I do not believe the Jewish faith interprets it this way anymore, I am no expert on current Jewish beliefs and practices)

California=New Testament=No death

The law is the same in both states (books)...punishment for violation is not.

It's really simple: Christians often use the Old Testament whenever they want to. Then they waffle back and forth depending on what point they want to make: OT----> NT. They cherry-pick based on convenience and situation.

Christians continually claim the Old Laws do not apply, yet why then do they consistently refer to Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Genesis, and the Ten Commandments? There is no objective criterion given for differentiation or using one over the other. If the Old Laws do not apply, as some say to avoid problems of the OT, then you cannot turn around and use them anyway whenever you want to make a point. If they do apply, you must explain a logical, objective reason why, which itself negates the silly idea that Jesus made the OT irrelevant when he fulfilled the law. 

Have you read the Bible?

yea, have you?

Would someone who is a Christian please explain how we are to differentiate between the 10 commandments and passages such as Leviticus 20:13? My reasoning is falling upon deaf ears so what is the interpretation of your version of Christianity?

HOW are Christians supposed to choose whether to follow either of these laws?

WHY is Leviticus 20:13 followed far less than the 10 commandments?

WHAT is the reason Christians (in general) try to follow the commandments and not Leviticus 20:13?

ARE both of these laws to be followed? If not how do we decide, as Christians, which to follow?

There is no logic behind it. It's entirely arbitrary cherry-picking and skillful shifting of goalposts whenever the situation mandates it.

The 10 commandments are moral principles that universally apply.  Leviticus 20:13 contains a moral principle and a prescribed punishment for failing to follow the principle.  The principle applies universally but the social law and punishment was assigned to the Israeli people.  The law applied to the state of Israel.  Christians are not members of the state of Israel which ceased to exist after 70AD.

Both of the moral principles apply and should be followed.  Neither are "Laws" per se.  The punishment does not apply to today's circumstances.

Another fundamentalist tactic: when cornered about the OT, arbitrarily define laws  as moral principles or come up with some other bullshit strategy to define away the problem so you can circumvent untenable situations.

The OT 10 Commandments are no less "laws" than much of the other shit in the Bible ignored. There's no clear criterion, no way to tell which is which other than you arbitrarily saying so. 

And enough with the "lolz, doesn't apply to Christians, because they 0nly applied to Israel!" bullshit. The 10 Commandments only applied to Israel too, since it was part of their Covenant, just as the rest of the crap was. The 10 Commandments just sound more palatable, therefore, you want to cherry-pick it into your new religion.

It is quite simple, really, laws and covenant requirements include consequences for failing to uphold the moral principle that is embodied by the law.  Moral principles alone do not.  Christians are expected to adopt all moral principles whether there is a legal prescription attached to it or not.

There are certainly consequences attached to the moral principles. You've simply plucked an unsupported random guess out of thin air as an answer. What source or explanation corroborates your definition of the theological difference?

So neither the 10 commandments, or Leviticus 20:13 apply to Christians in any specific dogmatic way? They're in teh OT so they apply only to Jews? This seems reasonable.

+1 to RF.

RF, if I may...

To put it another way, in the OT God presented man with the perfect standard.  He prescribed exactly what people have to do in order to be perfect and exactly what people deserve if they violate this perfection (death).  The result was that the people immediately failed and continue(d) to fail at this standard, they even failed at applying the just results of breaking the law.  Yet, this was the whole point.  The point was that there is no way people can meet the perfection of God.  Which brings us to Christ.  Since man can never meet the standard of God, He sent his Son to meet that standard and to pay for people's breaking of the law.

The end result is that the standard remains but the justice is left to God.  Either we accept Christ's sacrifice and are protected from the law or we are judged by it when we die.

I've read a few reasons why Jews don't follow levitical law.  One is that, as RF said, God made it pretty clear the law was for the people of Israel.  Israel was destroyed several times and the people exiled, when Moses's covenant community dispersed (because they broke the laws) the laws no longer applied.  I've also read that the law was ended when the temple was first destroyed (or the second time).  Either way, I don't think it's because the Jews are just being bad Jews.

Interesting opinion. The OT--a book of rape, murder, genocide and mindless worship...is considered a book on teaching you to be perfect. Fascinating. So it's perfect and moral to beat children to death for mocking priests, stone gays and witches, and kill people for blaspheme. Excellent definition of "perfection." Perfect for a sociopathic serial killer, of course.

Spoken like someone who's never actually read it.

You forgot that you must stone gays to death, as well as for talking back to your parents.




My point is that the laws modern Christians choose to follow are cherry picked based upon morality that they did not recieve from reading the bible. We (humans) understand the proper moral teaching in the bible and we can pick out the bad ones without outside help. It is humanity that understands morality, not mythology of the Iron age. The Bible should be understood as literature, nothing more.

Wrong. More accurately, it's spoken like someone who actually has read it, unlike most Christians. If they read their Bible and thought about it, they would think it's disgusting too.

I'd imagine most Christians have actually read past Deuteronomy.

For a minute I thought there might actually be someone trying to learn something on this board.  My mistake.  Just another CHRISTIANZ ARE TEH BAD(!) thread.

Most Christians so heavily cherry-pick their Bible quotes and simply say what their preachers have said, it;s unlikely they really read their own holy text. Most of them are either "tribal Christians" or people who emphasize whatever they want, ignoring the rest.

I for one am quite glad that the majority of Chrisitians are not in favor of stoning people for talking back to their parents, homosexuality, or planting different crops next to each other, etc.

WTF is the whole point of this thread? To show modern Christian that they need to be more radical in their observance of scripture?

It seems to me that if Christianity was really as bad as some of the posters here make it out to be, moderates would be applauded, not criticized for a failure to stone homosexuals.

What's going on here strikes me as just about as intelligent as criticizing moderate Muslims for not participating in "Jihad".


Just my two cents.

The moral principles apply to all humans in a very specific way.  JIMP did a much better job than I have of explaining the full situation, have a look at it.

Yes, it provides examples of proper behavior and of very poor behavior, and God's reaction to both.


No it is not proper to beat children to death if they are younger than the age of accountability.  It is perfection for a perfect being to insist on death and separation as the wages of sin.

I am surprised you have this notion that the Christians here have not read the bible.

As the audience can now see, he's just admitted that rape, murder, and violence are morally proper. This is further exemplified by the following:


As you can see, it's ok to beat your children to death if they make fun of priests, but only if they are old enough to understand why. This guy's a fucking loony toon. A true Christian for ya. Death = acceptable for cracking a joke about the preisthood, just so long as God says so!

"It is perfection for God to tell you to beat your children to death if he says it is!" 


Most don't. The others who do are like you: nuts. Most reasonable people wouldn't say it's perfection to beat your children to death if God says it's good. A sociopath, maybe.

That's what you take away from my post? You are obtuse.

You are totally delusional. Seek help.

I got it because that's entirely what you said. You gave a conditional statement. The conditional states that it's not wrong to beat your children to death for cracking a joke--and here's the kicker---if they aren't too young. Most interesting that you chose to word it like that and entirely omit information regarding children who are old enough to understand accountability. You leave open the option that it's ok to beat children who are old enough. Given that you claimed OT rules were moral and good, and murder, rape, and these violent laws are part of the OT rules, and given you even claim it's perfection for a perfect being to insist on death (referring to the killing of children who mock priests), this implies you likely contend the latter is Biblical "perfection" and good, although you don't come out and say it. You choose an ambiguous conditional on purpose for plausible deniability. If X then Y, X then Y. Not X = maybe Y, maybe not. I'll lean toward the former, given your comments.

Your quote, emphasis mine:

it is not proper to beat children to death if they are younger than the age of accountability.  It is perfection for a perfect being to insist on death


You're a sick little man.
Furthermore, you said the Bible provides perfection morality, and the rules helped give that perfection of behaviour. Given that the Bible advocates rape, murder, theft, genocide and wanton death penalties for minor infractions against rules as part of the rules for behaviour, it therefore follows that it's conception of perfection includes sociopathic behaviour and that you approve of it, since you honestly considered that "perfection." Again, it's not my fault you are morally bankrupt and brainwashed.

That's quite a choice there.

Either Christians "cherry pick" (BTW, you've beaten that dead horse beyond recognition) or 
don't actually read the book that's the basis for their belief, or the ones that do read it are lunatics.

..& of course you have ample evidence that most Christians don't read their Bible.




I'll again, point out the irony of you calling Christians out for selectively
reading the Bible, while you continue to do the exact same thing.





 

illy, your point is well taken..


Not so much more radical, just more strictly observant to early Old Testament scripture
...Otherwise they're not honest Christians.



 

No it is not entirely what I said.  You are reading into my words what you want them to say.  I am continuing with this to show that you do this regularly and you do tis with the words of scripture. 


My statement did not provide the context for when it is appropriate to administer a death sentence to someone's grown children.  You are not stating my position accurately when you place to condition that the offense is "cracking a joke".  It is also not correct that an individual takes the law into their own hands, I did not say that either.  Already you have twisted my words far past the intended meaning of the writer (me).  But you are not finished yet.  This is what you do to scripture.  Do you think other readers don't see what you do?


The age of accountability was and remains a major affair in the hebrew culture. 


I am aware of the passages you ripped this from and the proper context too (it has very little to do with capital punishment for young children who mock priests by the way).  In our society people past our age of accountability are subject to capital punishment as well.


Yes


NO!


Yes.


Yes


No, if you look back I claimed that scripture does not mention death for young children who mock priests.  More of you changing my words.



The version you have rewritten is certainly not.


If you would stop putting words in my mouth I could better explain.  Alas, that would not meet your purpose.  You are transparent.


Right. this is correct as written but not as you interpret it. People do have grown children (children past the age of accountability).  It is not proper to put to death people who can not be held accountable.   God however has dominion over all creation and can and will do with it as he pleases.


No it does not.


No, sorry your givens are wrong so the balance is not substantiated.


As I said, technocrat.  You don't even try to understand.  You are bankrupt.

Strictly observe what version of the OT?

Are we talking about learning Hebrew and Aramaic here, or can they just pick a good translation?

You want evidence? Easy. They often make the following claims:

1. The Bible is a moral book
2. God is a moral being as described in the Bible
3. The Bible is consistent with no contradictions

Having any one of those opinions entails that you really didn't read the book or are a nutter, because no sane person who actually read it would hold those opinions.  It's like someone saying Mein Kampf is a moral book with a moral central character written by a guy who didn't contradict himself. Either you're nuts, lying, or haven't really read it, but rather only certain passages. You can make anything sound good by cherry-picking parts of it, including Mein Kampf.



I don't do that all. I am taking it holistically. Overall, it's a poorly written, boring book filled with immoral recommendations and the veneration of evil deities.  Yahweh was originally a desert storm God the Jews used to justify their rape and pillage of the near east. Somehow, it expanded. That's about it.

Of course, Christians have yet another tactic: the myth of context and "lolz only my interpretation is correct, because I say so and...well, mine makes my horrible beliefs sound a whole lot better!"

In fact, the Bible recommends death for dozens of victimless crimes that are only crimes according to the arbitrary, bizarre standards of the clergy, and this tool justifies all of them, claiming they are "good and just" just because God says--at least when he's not outright lying, pretending the Bible doesn't actually say it.

That isn't evidence. That's your opinion.
That's the opinion of someone who's never read the book.
Your claim was "most Christians don't read it".


I was waiting for Godwin to show up.
Nicely done.



Holistically? That's funny.
You've done nothing but focus on the first three books of the Bible.
..& not even the entire books, simply a few chapters containing Mosaic Law.

Is that what you mean by holistically?

Where are the commands to rape & pillage in Psalms? How about in the Gospels?
(That's Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, BTW)
Where did Jesus justify raping & pillaging? Was it during The Sermon on the Mount?
The Beatitudes?

Come back when you've actually read the entire book....that's cover to cover.
Since you won't, simply continue to offer up your selective critic.

It's mildly entertaining.

I imagine some of these posts to be a cathartic vent for the militant atheists here.  In their real life they have no release against the God they fight against or are bitter towards.  It's like reading the rants of of an obstinate child, there isn't reason or consideration behind it, it's thread after thread of them emotionally and wildly lashing out.

What I can't decide is if they consciously know there is a God and they are bashing him like a teenager hates their parents, or if this is a display of a subconscious rebellion they can't articulate.

Either way, Carry on.

I don't need to read and quote the entire book to know a lot of it is shit. Sorry. I put it down half way through. It's boring, inaccurate, and hardly a moral text, son.

The whole OT of your "moral holy book" is filled with vile recommendations by the same guy you claim to be filled with moral goodness. I don't give a shit what Jesus says, since Jesus is God, and God in the OT is an asshole. Therefore, Jesus is still responsible for what happened in the OT. God and Jesus are one and the same. Evil doesn't change. He just put on a happy face.

you'd think, by the claims of xians, that atheists would love the bible. after all, aren't atheists accused of killing babies and raping women?
you'ld think that the atheist as defined by the xian would think the xian god is a total badass.
luckily, atheists see immorality when it presents itself - something xians have difficulty in doing. (scientifically proven, btw)

Gee, there's a surprise, another militant atheist that's shown to be a liar.  You make your people proud!

Hey Techno, since you have a problem reading all the way through books I'll let you in on another plot you probably missed... Saruman turns out to be a bad guy!  Fo' realzys!

EDIT - welcome back from your suspension Barney, I hope you had time to think about why you are naughty.

I am not a liar at all. If I were a liar, I would have told you I read the entire boring, crappy book, now wouldn't I, Llama Boy?

The book is bad. That's not a lie. It's fact, and the OT is an immoral pile of shit.

Are you capable of engaging in respectful, mature and civil debate?

It seems a great deal of your posts are laden with profanity that contributes nothing to the contextual substance of the post.

When I see repeated behavioral patterns like this, I recommend the offender to read the "Forum Civility" thread at the top of the page.

This area of the forum will remain respectable, and this applies to all sides of an issue.

No, when called out for not actually reading the book, you responded:


It only came out later that you stopped reading "halfway" through.
Your inability to keep attention is beside the point.

When you claim you've read a book, the implication is that you read the book,
not merely a 1/4 of it. Where did you stop, BTW? Which book?

Are you this dishonest when you talk about other books you've read?



You know, they make picture Bibles. Perhaps you'd have better luck in this area.

EDITED-Patton

Helpful hint here, it is staff that gets to make this call.  Not you.  And in case you missed it, he is a moderator, saying you are being uncivil. 

We'll try this again.

Read and understand the "Civility Thread" above.

Your last post is saved in the "Moderator" area as reference to disregarding a Moderators polite request for maturity and civility.

Attempt to disregard me and speak to me again like I am some punk and you will get to "view only" this area of the forum for the next week or two....continued disregard for Staff requests will up the ante from there.

I didn't disregard what you said at all. Had I disregarded what you said, I would have simply ignored you. You claimed I was being uncivil. Yet you say nothing about the people who outright lie or call people moron, dumbass, etc. If you are going to be inconsistent with your nanny rules, at least be honest.


Helpful hint here: when I want your opinion, I will ask you for it. One can say one's doing anything one likes. Doesn't mean it's true.

Correct, and your inability to demonstrate it is testimony enough.


Ah yes...using the actions of others to justify ones own.

Any reason you have that I read each and every post on the forum?

I do, however, read the ones reported.



Bypass Moderator and go straight to Admin....

I think we're done here.

Maybe when you are allowed to post again, you will have learned something.

I missed this:

The book of Leviticus, apparently.

I doubt translation matters.

Either Christians approve of OT law, or they aren't being honest.
That appears to be the implication.
 
What's being ignored continually, along with ~ 85% of the Bible, is Christ.



Edit - Spellcheck wants to change illy to oily. ;D

You spellcheck your posts?  Wimp.   ;)

I alwayz misspell apparently.


:P

if you read the few sayings by Jesus that are actually present in the bible. that is, if you focus on NOTHING BUT "Christ" you will see that he claimed that he had not come to overturn the OT laws.
HE said it, not me.

btw, what do xians mean when they say "jesus completed" the laws? how is "thou shalt not kill" completed?

I haven't seen any Christians here arguing that he came to over turn the OT laws Barnes.  What are you trying to say?

it has been said several times on this board, but not on this thread, that Christ dissolved the Old Testament laws. In this thread Christians seem to be supporting the basic principle of the Old Testament laws while disregarding the demanded punishment for them. Which is fine by me, they are detestable punishments that any moral society would have thrown aside. I just wanted to understand how some modern Christians rationalize the absolute lack of morality in the Old Testament.


If there is anything moral about the Old Testament it is that we can see the moral consequences of taking the bible literally. If you believe the bible, or any other book, is literally the word of God then the only thing keeping you from stepping over the edge is your interpretation. This is one reason radical Islam is such a terrible force and it should be understood that we are lucky to have enough prosperity and distraction in America that Christians don't openly advocate religion war. (although some still do)

Spell check buttons are so last year. Get yourself firefox 2, it has a built in spell check.



Many would disagree with you about the translation mattering. That has been described to me by some Christians as following the letter, not the spirit of the law. Considering the number of manuscripts and translations, I think interpretation of the Bible is a fairly subjective thing. But, if I am supposed to follow something strictly, I would do well to learn the language it was written in, to minimize meaning that gets lost in translation.



I see faith as a personal matter, and IMO where the line of thinking in this thread goes wrong is not in suggesting that Christians need to be more strict in anything, but that they need to do something. It's a bit presumptuous to think people need to interpret their faith in any one way.

I've heard it argued he completed them.  Beyond me to interpret that, but it sounds different tan dissolved to me.

Yes it does!   ;D

Most Xians say that the NT overrides the OT. Some use the strange term "completes the Law".

However, Jesus DOES overturn some laws of the OT, such as divorce (and the Paul contradicts Jesus!).  So, I guess what I'm saying, make up your own mind, but don't claim it is written such a way in the Bible becuase it ain't.

Oh I agree, illy, particularly when dealing with those that actually practice
their faith.

My comment was directed at those leveling the accusation of dishonesty on the
part of Christians not adhereing to OT law. 




Absolutely.



Again, no argument there.

It's becoming apparent to me that I misunderstood what you said. I thought you were claiming the dishonest Christians part (due to not strictly following the OT).

Ah, no problem.
I can see where it might've appeared like that.