Peter Hitchens debate – Show 15 May 2010

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Todd Pitner on May 21, 2010 at 22:28

That was soooooooo good, Daniel, it deserves to be fairly represented here:


I just about wet myself watching this...and simply enjoyed the perfect timing of its introduction. My taking pleasure in your artful tact must be a byproduct of regeneration:

"Regeneration is like peeing your pants, everyone can see it, but only YOU can feel the true warmth."

Thank you Daniel!

Todd

Permalink Reply by Todd Pitner on May 21, 2010 at 22:45

Gaytheist: Please feel free to use this bucket for your cherry picking.

What's the matter with cherry picking? You do it all the time!

Todd

Permalink Reply by Todd Pitner on May 21, 2010 at 22:48

Gaytheist: Americans never did have a sense of humour (although they voted in GWB for two terms, so maybe they did or they were thick!)

What's the matter with our sense of humor? How on earth can you say we do not have a sense of humor?!

Todd

Permalink Reply by Jew-Man-J on May 21, 2010 at 22:54

Which ten are they then? Is that pre the smashed lot or what?

ATB

JMJ

Permalink Reply by Norman Hansen on May 21, 2010 at 23:24

Tom
You prove my point about arbitrariness yet again. I agree the verses in Deuteronomy 21 do not necessarily mean only adolescents. I guess that you could use them to justify infanticide – you did say that its not a lex just a guide to moral behaviour. However I have to point out that if the Mosaic law was not intended to be a lex then what was it? The Torah is very particular that prosperity in the promised land depends upon keeping the law in detail not just using it as a moral guide. The verses you quote (John 13:34-35) are actually directed to the disciples and describe how believers are to appear to outsiders they do not deal with family relationships (you must pay attention to context in Bible study). Jesus is very clear in Matthew 5:18 that the law is not repealed so as far as I can see the lex stands.

However I am not aware that this law has ever been invoked. So the Israelites and subsequent adherents chose not to invoke this law demonstrating that common sense prevails – at least sometimes – over religious craziness.

As for the cultural effect of the Bible you are being selective again. British culture may be influenced by its Christian heritage but other events and concepts have equally been in play. Magna Carta for instance is not a biblically derived artefact but the result of political ambition from the aristocracy. It has in the end had profound influence on British culture. As for the Ten Commandments being the basis for UK law. The graven images section has only been taken seriously for a short time under Cromwell. The coveting laws are unworkable as a legal system, likewise parental obligation. The laws against murder and stealing go back to before the Ten Commandments were recorded.

Permalink Reply by Tom Coverly on May 22, 2010 at 9:09

Hi Norman.

“I agree the verses in Deuteronomy 21 do not necessarily mean only adolescents. I guess that you could use them to justify infanticide – you did say that its not a lex just a guide to moral behaviour.”

You might think that they could be used to justify the murder of babies but no Christian would. I didn’t say the Bible was a guide to moral behaviour. I said it was a source of moral authority. Please attend only to what is said and not what you would prefer was said.

“However I have to point out that if the Mosaic law was not intended to be a lex then what was it? The Torah is very particular that prosperity in the promised land depends upon keeping the law in detail not just using it as a moral guide.”

Mosaic Law was intended as a lex for the Jewish people at that time. Notice the tense.

“The verses you quote (John 13:34-35) are actually directed to the disciples and describe how believers are to appear to outsiders they do not deal with family relationships (you must pay attention to context in Bible study). ”

A lovely example of silly atheist literalism, thank you Norman, but Jesus’ teachings as a corpus are consistent despite your attempt to identify cherries. The teaching given here is not exclusive and so is necessarily inclusive, which is to say that non-believers and strangers are to be treated identically to family and believers. Jesus gave many teachings which convey this principle. Norman, don’t you know? You should pay attention to context in Bible study.

“Jesus is very clear in Matthew 5:18 that the law is not repealed so as far as I can see the lex stands.”

You’ll notice that section of Mathew speaks of “law” and “commandments“. There is no law or commandment anywhere in the Bible which would lead anyone to stone their children, much as you would like it to be otherwise. Norman, don’t you know? You should pay attention to words in Bible study.

“However I am not aware that this law has ever been invoked. So the Israelites and subsequent adherents chose not to invoke this law demonstrating that common sense prevails – at least sometimes – over religious craziness.”

Well, no. The parsimonious explanation is the correct explanation. The stoning of children was never given as a law.

“As for the cultural effect of the Bible you are being selective again. British culture may be influenced by its Christian heritage but other events and concepts have equally been in play.”

No, I’m not dismissing other influences. I said that the Bible has been “one of the founding stones of our culture”. I did not say it was the only founding stone of our culture. I do not mention other influences because they are not pertinent to the current discussion.

“As for the Ten Commandments being the basis for UK law. The graven images section has only been taken seriously for a short time under Cromwell. The coveting laws are unworkable as a legal system, likewise parental obligation.”

To say that one thing is a basis for another thing is not to say that the second is a duplicate of the first. That’s quite obvious.

“The laws against murder and stealing go back to before the Ten Commandments were recorded.”

It's British society, we’re talking about. Can you show that there were laws against murder and theft in British society before Christianity brought those prohibitions here? I’d love to see you try.

Keep it up, Norman. You’re out of your league with these dreary Dawkinsian tactics.

Permalink Reply by Alex B on May 22, 2010 at 9:16

Tom - why are you calling Norman, Alex?

Permalink Reply by Tom Coverly on May 22, 2010 at 9:20

Something to do with tea, most likely. Edit pending.

Permalink Reply by Norman Hansen on May 22, 2010 at 18:30

Hi Tom

“You might think that they could be used to justify the murder of babies but no Christian would. I didn’t say the Bible was a guide to moral behaviour. I said it was a source of moral authority. Please attend only to what is said and not what you would prefer was said.”

So as a source of moral authority you can declare anything you say is moral to be moral (even if it is not in the Bible?) and whatever the Bible says is of no importance? Or are you just weaselling out of acknowledging that something in the Bible is abhorrent even to Christian Fundamentalists so has to be “reinterpreted”? That sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

“You’ll notice that section of Mathew speaks of “law” and “commandments“. There is no law or commandment anywhere in the Bible which would lead anyone to stone their children, much as you would like it to be otherwise. Norman, don’t you know? You should pay attention to words in Bible study.” And “The stoning of children was never given as a law.”

OK so when it says in Deuteronomy 5:1 Moses says “Hear O Israel the decrees and Laws I declare in your hearing today.” And then Deuteronomy 6:1 “these are the commands decrees and laws” and then in Deuteronomy 26:19 “The Lord your God commands you this day to follow these decrees and laws” at the end of the section that doesn’t make the decrees and laws decrees and laws? Maybe they were only intended to apply for 24 hours and Moses says the lord commands you this day? Or maybe I am misreading that as context? So as the rules about lost property are here we should ignore them and if we find someone’s wallet in the street just pocket the content and not try to restore it? After all its not a lex and it’s not a guide to moral behaviour now, according to you.

“A lovely example of silly atheist literalism, thank you Norman, but Jesus’ teachings as a corpus are consistent despite your attempt to identify cherries. The teaching given here is not exclusive and so is necessarily inclusive, which is to say that non-believers and strangers are to be treated identically to family and believers. Jesus gave many teachings which convey this principle. Norman, don’t you know? You should pay attention to context in Bible study.”

So Jesus teaching is just a complete hash of sayings which can be pulled out and reinterpreted to apply to whatever you want them to apply to. Now that is arbitrary. Or are you peeved that an atheist has pointed out a poor choice of quote? There are verses for example the ones dealing with the two greatest commandments, but that does not make John 13:34,35 universal or context free.

As for pre-christian laws in Britain I think the Romans had a few dealing with property and who you could and couldn’t kill. Modern tort law derives from Roman so it too is part of our culture.

Permalink Reply by Todd Pitner on May 23, 2010 at 2:06

Gaytheist: You seem to forget I am not a Christian.

Todd: Yet.

Gaytheist: Never.

Todd: It's not if, it's when. You have a choice pre-dirt-nap...one I'd suggest you take with a little humility and repentance for tomorrow's breath is not an entitlement.

Postmortem, Gaytheist -- "Truth happens."

Even Dawkins will become a God-fearing Christian:

Permalink Reply by Todd Pitner on May 23, 2010 at 2:45

Richard, I didn't say: Even Dawkins will become a God-fearing Christian: for nothing!

I'm Morgan-sensitive!!!

Todd

Permalink Reply by Todd Pitner on May 23, 2010 at 4:08

Yes, but Jesus already paid your tab.

It's all good, Bro.

Todd

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• …
• 26
• Next ›
• Page