For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
In practice, Christians don’t think this means all old testament laws remain in force literally. That’s a contradiction when they want to use literalism elsewhere, but that’s not most Christians.
That sounds like something of a thought terminating cliche. I think it’s at once simpler and more complicated.
Simpler because most Christians don’t think overly much about their beliefs and believe their church’s doctrine. More complicated because many do, and those that do think way beyond what’s “comfortable”. Scholarship going back millennia had dispelled - for scholars - any notion of biblical inerrancy, never mind literalism. For those who don’t believe the Bible’s plain reading is all true, there is no discomfort here - it would be a supreme arrogance to accuse minds such as Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas of merely believing whatever feels comfortable.
That doesn’t mean they’re right obviously, but you can do better than such dismissal.
It’s not arrogance to say that if you have already found your conclusion then any counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction and make “the christian faith is true” impossible to be a true statement will just be explained away. Either by mistranslations, missing historical or cultural context or somesuch.
Sure but it’s arrogant to claim that all of these thinkers from ages past were actually doing that. I don’t agree with any of them because I’m not religious but they had serious reasons for the views they held, and there were serious disagreements on matters of religion that caused serious debates with serious arguments put forward.
any counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction and make “the christian faith is true” impossible to be a true statement
We’re talking about the content of the Bible and its interpretation, not “counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction.” (And: modern religions are far to flexible to be subject to “clear contradictions”. I’m sure you’ve heard the responses from religious people to your criticisms already - you find those response unsatisfactory, as do I, but they expose a way in which you misunderstood the fundamental character of the religion you were criticising. I can expand if necessary)
So when it comes to scripture like “I didn’t come to change the law” and so on, there are any number of ways of interpreting the language non-literally in a way consistent with modern Christian practice. I’m not going to play devil’s (God’s?) advocate with you but dismissing such things completely and out of hand is ignorant. People with better understanding of Biblical languages than you or I have studied more of the Bible than you or I have and have had long-running arguments it. If you don’t believe the fundamental principles then… just let them have it? Dispute them when they come up against obvious moral or scientific principles, or on their other statements, but claiming with zero argumentation that they don’t do any real thinking is silly.
Matthew 5, 18:
In short: Nope.
In practice, Christians don’t think this means all old testament laws remain in force literally. That’s a contradiction when they want to use literalism elsewhere, but that’s not most Christians.
Of course they don’t, cause that would be uncomfortable. I know, cause I used to think the same way before ridding myself of faith.
That sounds like something of a thought terminating cliche. I think it’s at once simpler and more complicated.
Simpler because most Christians don’t think overly much about their beliefs and believe their church’s doctrine. More complicated because many do, and those that do think way beyond what’s “comfortable”. Scholarship going back millennia had dispelled - for scholars - any notion of biblical inerrancy, never mind literalism. For those who don’t believe the Bible’s plain reading is all true, there is no discomfort here - it would be a supreme arrogance to accuse minds such as Anselm, Augustine and Aquinas of merely believing whatever feels comfortable.
That doesn’t mean they’re right obviously, but you can do better than such dismissal.
It’s not arrogance to say that if you have already found your conclusion then any counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction and make “the christian faith is true” impossible to be a true statement will just be explained away. Either by mistranslations, missing historical or cultural context or somesuch.
Sure but it’s arrogant to claim that all of these thinkers from ages past were actually doing that. I don’t agree with any of them because I’m not religious but they had serious reasons for the views they held, and there were serious disagreements on matters of religion that caused serious debates with serious arguments put forward.
We’re talking about the content of the Bible and its interpretation, not “counter-arguments that clearly show a contradiction.” (And: modern religions are far to flexible to be subject to “clear contradictions”. I’m sure you’ve heard the responses from religious people to your criticisms already - you find those response unsatisfactory, as do I, but they expose a way in which you misunderstood the fundamental character of the religion you were criticising. I can expand if necessary)
So when it comes to scripture like “I didn’t come to change the law” and so on, there are any number of ways of interpreting the language non-literally in a way consistent with modern Christian practice. I’m not going to play devil’s (God’s?) advocate with you but dismissing such things completely and out of hand is ignorant. People with better understanding of Biblical languages than you or I have studied more of the Bible than you or I have and have had long-running arguments it. If you don’t believe the fundamental principles then… just let them have it? Dispute them when they come up against obvious moral or scientific principles, or on their other statements, but claiming with zero argumentation that they don’t do any real thinking is silly.
If they aren’t ripping apart a pigeon and lighting it on fire on a rock after touching any wild game meat, then they’re not a true Christian.
What defines “true Christian” for you? Can he put sugar on his porridge?
what’s a good counter to “it says being gay is a sin in Leviticus” ?
Wearing those pants is also a sin- Both to the lord, and to my fashion sense! (Assuming theyre wearing a blended fabric)