Actually there is a whole wikipedia entry on Matthew 5:17 and the contention around it, so to say that there is no debate and never has been is clearly false. A quick google search shows that there's actually quite a bit of debate about it within the christian community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

Also from wikipedia:

---------------
New Covenant Theology is an Evangelical position,but within evangelicalism there are divergent views on a number of topics. One of those topics is how the salvation history fits together, and the relationship of the covenants within salvation history.
Some logical deductions of New Covenant Theologians and advocates have been that since "the whole Old Covenant is obsolete", "none of the commands of the Mosaic Law are binding on believers today." Covenant Theologians, on the other hand, believe that at least portions of the Old Testament law is binding on Christians, though there is some variation on which parts and how they apply.

--------------

Sure looks like there is some debate going on to me. This is hardly the only issue that is under contention in the christian faith.




>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

I just gave you a contradiction right there in the quote from Matthew. Asking me to go read Galatians just proves my point. Surly you aren't claiming that the rest of the bible contains no contradictions.

Which church by the way? There are hundreds of denominations, and any of them that denounce homosexuality are following mosaic law.

What about the 10 commandments? That tossed out too?

Why should we pay any attention to the bible vs. any other religious text?





>> ^shinyblurry:

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview.
>> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

That is plainly false, there is no such contention or contridiction. There may be Christians out there who aren't sure, but within the church there is no debate about it, nor has there ever been. The bible itself clarifies the issue, because there were many jews who still wanted to keep the law of Moses. Read Galatians for an overview. The verse you quoted is exactly right..Jesus did not destroy the law, but rather fulfilled it..the ceremonial requirements are no longer necessary in the era of the New Covenant, as this was given to the jews for the time prior to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus fulfills those obligations of the law, so by following Him, we are justified. >> ^LiquidDrift:
Jesus actually said that he holds up mosaic law:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matthew 5:17)
Apparently there is some contention among christians as to whether to follow mosaic law or not. This is one of the many problems with the bible. There is so much contradiction that man must interpret the nonsense that a bunch of other men wrote thousands of years ago. Given there is so much contradiction, you can end up with many disparate interpretations that end up being whatever the interpreter feels is the way to go. Therefore the bible is at best no better a guide than any philosophical text.
If we are going to follow religious text then how do we determine which one to follow? The Roman and Greek mythology was interesting. How about the Koran? Maybe I'll write down the devine law that the flying spaghetti monster gave me on golden tablets. There's a homeless guy down by the waterfront that says he's Jesus, maybe I should ask him. The Scientologists certainly have some fascinating ideas about morality, although it would cost us all an awful lot of money to find out exactly what they all are.
>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, that was just the mosaic law that was done away with. The New Testament gives a cohesive framework for how to live a moral life, and what actions are sinful. There isn't a list persay..it is spread out in the different books.

shinyblurry: "Christians are not under the law of moses."

This is fast becoming the new mantra whenever someone points to a passage in the Old Testament that is particularly hard to defend on moral or logical grounds.

I wish Christians would make up their minds on if they are going to claim to be bound by the Old Testament or not. The passages in Leviticus condemning homosexuality as an abomination, as just one example, seems to be on the lips of every mega-church pastor and religious right nut job running for office.

We should give to the church, however, there is no mandate on the amount. Christians are not under the law of moses.


>> ^direpickle:
@shinyblurry: Why do you want to rob god? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/frown.gif">
1 Corinthians 16:2
On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.
Malachi 3:8
Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' In tithes and offerings.


>> ^direpickle:
@shinyblurry: Why do you want to rob god? <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/frown.gif">
1 Corinthians 16:2
On the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income, saving it up, so that when I come no collections will have to be made.
Malachi 3:8
Will a man rob God? Yet you rob me. But you ask, 'How do we rob you?' In tithes and offerings.

Yeah, what the heck was that? The pity laughs were also painful.
>> ^conan:

wtf? he messed up his whole act. has he even rehearsed it? should be ashamed to go live with that.

There was a better one I should have saved. It was Gears of War, with Jesus in the lead, Moses, Harry Potter, and Captain Crunch behind him.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'god, jesus, king, abel, david, moses, adam, jonah' to 'god, jesus, king, abel, david, moses, adam, jonah, typography' - edited by hpqp

^ It's well known that one of the commandments on the 3rd tablet which was lost when it slipped out of Moses' hand, but still practiced widely today is, "Thou shalt lack a sense of humor."

I thought it was hilarious, but then, as an anti-thiest I rather enjoy when people expose the idiocy, bigotry and insanity of the bible. Only ignorant believers would overlook the morally-bankrupt content contained within, or pretend it's not actually in there since a significant number have no doubt never read the damned thing.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

One of my favorite Biblical passages, Exodus 32:26-28:

32:26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD's side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him.
32:27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.
32:28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

It even has internal biblical evidence... remember Moses' "burning bush"?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-525993/Moses-high-hallucinogenic-drug-received-Ten-Commandments-claims-academic.html
>> ^Boise_Lib:

I think this is the best comment on the origin of the bible that I've ever seen.

responding to maxwilder

Ghandi starved himself, very humble, wished for peace w/ his enemies. as for "communicates with us individually and grants requests"

I guess when moses asked for the ten commandments and God sent this flame and set those commandments into stone? Oh, that was a charlton heston movie. Excuse my sarcasm.

I have to use humor to respond to "god will grant your requests" because the whole idea is a joke.

wait, never mind. last time i was in a bookstore, they had a whole isle of "power of prayer" books. What the hell was i defending? Prayer granting wishes is making some authors moderately rich.

Wow. You're so ridiculously stubborn that you are actually going to defend your indefensible viewpoint. Fine, it's your funeral. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Did you know that Cyrus freeing of the slaves confirms the bible is true? It was prophecied that the jews would go into exile and be freed at the exact time Cyrus freed them:

"Jeremiah predicted Israel’s second captivity would last 70 years for every year they had not observed the Sabbath year rest of the land. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jer 25:11) The Babylonian army conquered Israel in the spring of 606 B.C. Confirmed by history as well as the Bible, Israel’s captivity in Babylon ended exactly 70 years later in the spring of 536 B.C., in the Jewish month Nisan. As was predicted, the Persian King Cyrus freed the Jews to return to their land (Ezra 1:1-3)."

You're right, there is also historical confirmation outside of the bible of what Cyrus did: it comes from the 1st century roman historian Titus Flavius Josephus. The same historian who confirms that Jesus was a historical figure and affirms His life death and resurrection. This agrees with modern historians, almost none of which make the ridiculous claim that Jesus never existed.

So lets review..so far your position confirms the accuracy of bible prophecy and the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. I really couldn't have said it better myself. So yeah..any other evidence you'd like to present to prove my case?
>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
lol!! wow this is truly classic.
Maybe you should actually read the articles you're providing as evidence from your desperate google search to disprove me.
Do you know what slaves he freed? The Jews. That's right, Gods chosen people.

Sooo...that means he was a Christian? Do you understand the concept of moving the goal posts?
>> ^shinyblurry:
How do we know this? The bible. Getting a sinking feeling yet?

I have never claimed that the bible does not reference historical events/places/people, but it can not by any objective measure be considered historically accurate itself. Cyrus, unlike Moses and Jesus, is not a construction of the biblical authors, if the bible had never existed we would still know of Cyrus and have a general understanding of what he did.

>> ^shinyblurry:

lol!! wow this is truly classic.
Maybe you should actually read the articles you're providing as evidence from your desperate google search to disprove me.
Do you know what slaves he freed? The Jews. That's right, Gods chosen people.


Sooo...that means he was a Christian? Do you understand the concept of moving the goal posts?

>> ^shinyblurry:

How do we know this? The bible. Getting a sinking feeling yet?


I have never claimed that the bible does not reference historical events/places/people, but it can not by any objective measure be considered historically accurate itself. Cyrus, unlike Moses and Jesus, is not a construction of the biblical authors, if the bible had never existed we would still know of Cyrus and have a general understanding of what he did.

I think you're arguing whether or not this is a good system whereas I'm just stating that it's how it works. However, if we follow through on your example, those two men would probably face severe punishment (and/or death) for those actions because they went against the consensus of what the larger population thinks is moral behavior. Evolution by both natural and artificial selection.

While it's a subtle distinction, I believe it's an important one: There's a difference between making a decision based on your emotions and making a decision based on how it will effect other people. Yes, I believe that not causing harm or distress to other people is an objective base. I realize that's controversial.

I'm not arguing about whether it is good or not, I am saying it is madness. Witness the genocide in rwanda, or Nazi germany, or a million other examples of why morality by concensus and feeling is not moral by any definition. If it's all based on what people feel, and agree on, then if they feel that they don't like a group of people, and agree that they all should die, then in your world that's moral! The only thing that would stop such people would be judgment from another concensus. So basically, in your world anything people justify to themselves and get other people to agree on is moral behavior.

Do no harm is not an objective standard, that is such a simplistic way of looking at the world..there will always be exceptions. Such as defending your life, or someone else. You have to make judgments about right and wrong, what is good for more than yourself (which you have no way to determine), and do not harm doesn't cover them. If you had an opportunity to assassinate hitler, would you turn it down because of do no harm? What is the greater evil, killing him or letting him live? Why? For that matter, what makes hitler an objectively worse person than you are? Morality is always a moving target in your world; for it to be objective it can never move. It's insanity in every other case.

God told us that it's ok to beat a slave as long as we don't kill him. Only Israelites are above slavery.

In Exodus we're told that if a bull goes on a killing spree, the bull and the bull's owner are to be put to death. However, if the bull kills slaves, then the bull's owner owes the slaves' owners some cash.

The NT is a little softer (not surprisingly) on slaves, but still states that it's ok to own people so long as you treat them reasonably well.

Generally, were you ok with slavery and other immoral acts before your conversion? Did you really need to be told that these things were wrong? Or did you already know? I bet you already knew and I bet you were no less moral a person then than you are now.

I think you're utterly missing the point of what I have been talking about. It's not reading the bible that makes someone moral. Everyone has a God given conscience which tells them what's right from wrong. Murder is obejectively wrong because that is the law written on our hearts. However, that doesn't tell us how to live, it just gives us a general idea of what to do. That's why we need God to give us instructions on how to live a moral life

It's funny that you're railing against Christianity for slavery; Christians are the reason we abolished slavery. There has never been an abolitionist movement anywhere besides in the Christian west. Your morality by concensus failed to free any slaves, it took Christians to do it. The bible never says it okay to own slaves. Jesus taught that everyone is equal in the eyes of God. Anyone who follows that would know that keeping slaves was wrong. Gods message is progressive according to what people are ready to hear. The laws on divorce in the days of Moses were given because of the hardness of mens hearts. It took nearly 2000 years for people to be ready to free slaves..at the time, it just wasn't going to happen.