Joe,

Yes, I did acknowledge earlier that the New Testament is slightly better. But it’s still pretty awful.

Is Mise,

I don’t think you really mean the first half of that sentence.

<<Your lack of knowledge of Christianity is astounding; you want a reference to the most basic of the beliefs on which Christianity is built?>>

I think I’ve demonstrated over my years on OLO that my knowledge of the Bible and Christian theology is more than adequate. ttbn has the excuse of being relatively new here.

And no. I wanted to know what you were referring to. And what you originally said was not “one of the most basic of the beliefs on which Christianity is built.”

If your knowledge of Christian theology is so good, then could you tell me what the two main schools of thought are with regards to the glaring moral inconsistencies between the two Testaments?

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:18)

That’s just Jesus telling Paul to build the Church upon Him (i.e. the “rock”). Jesus isn’t undoing anything or going back on his words in the Matthew verse that has been quoted so many times on this thread now. Nor did Peter have greater authority over Jesus, as you suggest.

By the way, I don’t think that Christians not feeling obliged to get the childless widow of their brother pregnant has anything to do with an obligation to improve the Church that Matthew 16:18 has left them feeling. More do to do with secularism and a shifting moral zeitgeist.

ttbn,

If you can say that the New Testament overrides the Old Testament, then I can assure you that I know a lot more about the Old Testament than you do.

poirot: The fact is that one has to suppress one's powers of reason and rational thought to believe the foundational premises of "Sky God" religions. And that's the reason I've never been able to "believe"...my rational mind will not permit it.

Amen to that poirot. So now you're an Atheist? Better keep quite because, as an Apostate, you're gonner mate.

Steelie: It is a big ask to have us acquiesce to the notion that highly Christianised nations in Europe who took to the task of slaughtering over 6 million Jews with such relish should not be regarded as Christian.

Not to mention 13 million Christians, Gypsies & Disabled. etc. But you are right. The bibles full of some pretty garish things.

Did you know that you are compelled to eat your children if you run out of food. Deut. 28:53-60. Young girls first. Yumm!

Did you know that if you have a child that won't behave you have to take them to the edge of town & kill them. Deut. 21:18-21. I know a few kids that s/could apply to.

& Marrying girl babies. 3 years & 1 day. Numbers. 31: 17-18, 35-40.

But, unlike, even Moderate moslems, no one takes any notice of those bits. &, We certainly wouldn't kill anyone that didn't comply with those Laws. ;-)

Any answers to my questions, mate?

Loudmouth: So many red herrings ! My fridge is full of the bloody things. Maybe I'll have to get a cat.

Reooowwww! spittt! kussssss! ;-)

Most Atheist know much about the Bible, Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Theravada, Mahayana. That's why they don't believe in Gods. For some reason Religionist seem to think that Atheists are totally ignorant of the many & varied beliefs that pervade the lives of believers.

Runner is a fervent believer. I have no problem with that. He is entitled to believe, but not to "Demand" that I believe what he believe or he will kill me. Which is what Islam does.

runner,

"They criticise the ressurection and then have the audacity to say the order of this universe came from nothing or even worse chaos...."

I'm not "criticising" the resurrection...I'm saying it's not rational for me to believe that someone died, came back to life and then ascended bodily into "Heaven"....(what's Heaven?)

"...The hopeless lack of evidence from fossils or anything else to support evolution despite their rhetoric exposes the fairytales they hide behind...."

Who are you to spout about "evidence"? (of which there is far more to support the theory of evolution than there is to support someone dying and coming back to life days later:)

"anyone who can't see that secularist consistently ignore what is obvious (a Creator, a Designer, the corruption of man) simply remain willfully ignorant..."

Ho hum...and now the obvious question - where did "God" come from?

"The truth is they are far more like Mohammed with his stinking pride and immorality than anyone else...."

We always have to include runner's charming asides...it wouldn't be a runner post without at least one such reference to "stinking", "hate", etc.

.....

Why if, as some here claim, the New Testament overrides the Old Testament - is the Old Testament still tacked onto the New?

Pascal reckoned Jesus is what he said he was because it was written in Old Testament prophecy - and that the Jewish people would not recognise him as such...is that why the "superseded" scriptures are still relevant to the New Testament?

Thanks Jayb :)

Hi A. J. Phillips,

Here's a thought, perhaps irrelevant: people whose thought patterns are embedded in religion may have a different sense of cause-and-effect from normal people (go for it, Runner!): because their god or gods or ancestors or spirit trees or whatever control the universe and what happens in it, and because only they know what they are doing, then, to believing humans, things just happen - no observable cause. And because the say the world works is so capricious, then any consequences of something are equally inscrutable.

So, from a basically sophisticated point of view, say, Poirot's, there is:

* cause - event - consequence, [hence more 'events', hence more consequences, ad infinitum ]

but from a religious or superstitious person's viewpoint there is:

* event

or perhaps

* event and (surprise) another event and maybe later another event and later still another event

I've been trying to apply this hypothesis to hunter-gatherer family-cultures, and their descendants, such as welfare-oriented family-cultures. [Culture, after all, is passed down, perhaps little modified, within families.] It seems to answer a lot of questions. Still working on it.

I suppose the basic premise is that 'pre-scientific' philosophies tend to see phenomena as isolated incidents, while a 'scientific' philosophy will involve trying to understand the antecedent factors of an incident and its likely consequences. Does this make any sense ?

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Poirot,

You ask, quite rightly: ' ..... where did "God" come from?'

The obvious but probably misleading answer is that she was created by HER god, out there in the kitchen of the restaurant at the end of the universe.

But surely, surely, it's far more likely, if you think about it, that god was created out of nothingness by a unicorn standing on the back of a turtle ?

But, you may ask, what is the turtle standing on ?

And the obvious answer is: on the back of another turtle.

And yes, since you are about to ask - wait for it - it's turtles all the way down.

Glad to help,

Joe