Canon law does not apply to laymen and the OT was usually understood, in mainstream Christianity, as being superseded by NT. Even mainstream Protestantism departed from the fatalism and literalism of Luther after less than 150 years (albeit strong resistance to modernity appeared later, and continues to this day).

No surprise that no Christian country applies Leviticus in practice, not even the Jewish state. Yes Christianity is problematic, and we have to criticize the negative aspects without any doubt. But at the same time we have also to recognize frankly its merits wherever they are. You can deny it as much as you like but its contribution to modernity is still there, in plain sight. Including in the apparition of universal human rights (the idea was put in practice by secularists, some non Christian, but the roots can be found in the theology of some mainstream sects of Christianity).

Sharia on the other hand does apply to lay people. It applies even to non muslims, abusing them, since there are clear provisions on how non muslims under muslim rule should behave (amazing isn't it, should I wait for another 'strawman'?). And Reason is still severely downplayed in religious matters in all parts of the Islamic world. There is no surprise that the muslim world is where it is since important remnants of the defective parts of sharia are still there, at least influencing the countries' Laws all over the place.

Loads of rhetoric in your posts (even the silly accusations of 'strawmen' are hilarious since one post later one can see the obvious contradictions to those claims). Well 'academicians' I won't interrupt you any more, no point to do it, you can debate at will here. At the high level of atheist fundies of course. Hitting the air. Truth is elsewhere I'm afraid.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Neceseco wrote:islam is violent at its core.

To be fair, ALL of the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam and the various flavors of these are inherently violent at their core.

Yeah, the OT god was violent at the core. He sure did a lot of slaughtering. But the NT has this presumably weed-smoking hippie called Cheezuz or something who preaches peache, brotha! Never mind the Bible mostly being considered to be inspired by God's word, not God's actual words.

On the other hand, the violence ordered to be carried out by Muslims in the Qur'an is confirmed by Muhammad's own actions (the role model of all Muslims). And the Qur'an is Allah's perfect and infallible words to the faithful.

So yeah, the Christian god is horribly evil, at least until his kid apparently shows up 2000 years ago and tells people to love their enemies and weird stuff like that. Allah is thoroughly unpleasant and evil all the way through, as is his perfect model human.

Judaism is kind of irrelevant as it doesn't even care about expanding and reaching new people, unlike Christianity and Islam that are both expansionist religions.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Neceseco wrote:islam is violent at its core.

To be fair, ALL of the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam and the various flavors of these are inherently violent at their core.

Yeah, the OT god was violent at the core. He sure did a lot of slaughtering. But the NT has this presumably weed-smoking hippie called Cheezuz or something who preaches peache, brotha! Never mind the Bible mostly being considered to be inspired by God's word, not God's actual words.

I already presented some violent screeds from the NT earlier in this thread as well as this bit:

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

WayOfTheDodo wrote:On the other hand, the violence ordered to be carried out by Muslims in the Qur'an is confirmed by Muhammad's own actions (the role model of all Muslims). And the Qur'an is Allah's perfect and infallible words to the faithful.

And Jesus confirmed that unruly children should be put to death.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:So yeah, the Christian god is horribly evil, at least until his kid apparently shows up 2000 years ago and tells people to love their enemies and weird stuff like that.

Nope, even then he's horrible.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:Judaism is kind of irrelevant as it doesn't even care about expanding and reaching new people, unlike Christianity and Islam that are both expansionist religions.

Now that you mention it, it is equally evil in the sense that it teaches faith over reason and like the other two faiths teaches division and discrimination against homosexuals among others.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And Jesus confirmed that unruly children should be put to death.

Where did he do that? I did try a Google search, and came across Mark 7:10, but the context seems to be that Jesus was calling the Pharisees hypocrites for not following those rules (one of them being killing children who curse their children). He doesn't seem to actually promote the rules he mentions.

http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible ... ARK+7.html

Now that you mention it, it is equally evil in the sense that it teaches faith over reason and like the other two faiths teaches division and discrimination against homosexuals among others.

It is equally evil in that way, but less evil in the ways that I described.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And Jesus confirmed that unruly children should be put to death.

Where did he do that? I did try a Google search, and came across Mark 7:10, but the context seems to be that Jesus was calling the Pharisees hypocrites for not following those rules (one of them being killing children who curse their children). He doesn't seem to actually promote the rules he mentions.

http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible ... ARK+7.html

Now that you mention it, it is equally evil in the sense that it teaches faith over reason and like the other two faiths teaches division and discrimination against homosexuals among others.

It is equally evil in that way, but less evil in the ways that I described.

Jesus explicitely states he has not come to abolish or change OT law:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam/interpreting-islam-t48404-20.html#p2197095

metacristi wrote:Canon law does not apply to laymen

We're not talking about Canon law.
We're talking about laws proscribing how to acquire, keep and treat slaves.
Laws proscribing to stone disobedient children.
Etc, etc.

metacristi wrote: and the OT was usually understood, in mainstream Christianity, as being superseded by NT.

Which is absolute, cherry-picking bollocks, as I've shown earlier in this thread and again in my post above.

metacristi wrote: Even mainstream Protestantism departed from the fatalism and literalism of Luther after less than 150 years (albeit strong resistance to modernity appeared later, and continues to this day).

Unless you want to plead the No True Christianity fallacy, you cannot ignore the content of the bible nor that various Christian sects do adhere by them.

metacristi wrote:No surprise that no Christian country applies Leviticus in practice,

Yea, you know why?
Because there's virtually no Christian nation in existence.
And because the West has slowly moved towards secularism and humanism, forcing Christianity to adapt.
Not because of some benign essence of Christianity.

metacristi wrote: not even the Jewish state. Yes Christianity is problematic, and we have to criticize the negative aspects without any doubt. But at the same time we have also to recognize frankly its merits wherever they are.

There are very little if any.

metacristi wrote: You can deny it as much as you like but its contribution to modernity is still there, in plain sight.

Give a clear example, not assertions.

metacristi wrote: Including in the apparition of universal human rights (the idea was put in practice by secularists, some non Christian, but the roots can be found in the theology of some mainstream sects of Christianity).

Utter fantastical nonsense.
The roots can be found in empathy and the Golden Rule, both of which precede Christianity.

metacristi wrote:Sharia on the other hand does apply to lay people. It applies even to non muslims,

So do the horrific laws of the OT.

metacristi wrote:Loads of rhetoric in your posts (even the silly accusations of 'strawmen' are hilarious since one post later one can see the obvious contradictions to those claims).

You do realise you're doing fuck all to demonstrate the truth of this claim?
Which demonstrates it's no more than desperate, blind dismissal?

metacristi wrote: Well 'academicians' I won't interrupt you any more, no point to do it, you can debate at will here.

Do you even know what a debate is?

metacristi wrote: At the high level of atheist fundies of course. Hitting the air. Truth is elsewhere I'm afraid.

You clearly don't know what atheism is as evidenced by this asinine statement.

Once again you've demonstrated to only be able to offer blind assertions, most of them counterfactual, while completely failing to adress the points being made by your interlocutors.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And Jesus confirmed that unruly children should be put to death.

Where did he do that? I did try a Google search, and came across Mark 7:10, but the context seems to be that Jesus was calling the Pharisees hypocrites for not following those rules (one of them being killing children who curse their children). He doesn't seem to actually promote the rules he mentions.

http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible ... ARK+7.html

So, where did he do that?

Now that you mention it, it is equally evil in the sense that it teaches faith over reason and like the other two faiths teaches division and discrimination against homosexuals among others.

It is equally evil in that way, but less evil in the ways that I described.

Jesus explicitely states he has not come to abolish or change OT law:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam/interpreting-islam-t48404-20.html#p2197095

Other parts of the NT say it doesn't apply anymore. Apparently the interpretation of the parts you quite is not as straightforward as one might think:

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... abolish-it

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:And Jesus confirmed that unruly children should be put to death.

Where did he do that? I did try a Google search, and came across Mark 7:10, but the context seems to be that Jesus was calling the Pharisees hypocrites for not following those rules (one of them being killing children who curse their children). He doesn't seem to actually promote the rules he mentions.

http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible ... ARK+7.html

So, where did he do that?

It is equally evil in that way, but less evil in the ways that I described.

Jesus explicitely states he has not come to abolish or change OT law:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/islam/interpreting-islam-t48404-20.html#p2197095

Other parts of the NT say it doesn't apply anymore. Apparently the interpretation of the parts you quite is not as straightforward as one might think:

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... abolish-it

Actually all this demonstrate is a fact I've noted before, that the bible contradicts itself.
And all that waffling about fufillment, is just desperate apologetics. You cannot fufill a law in any other way than to abide by it and punish those who don't.
Ie, it is either immoral to be gay or it isn't. You should either stone disobedient children or you shouldn't.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The bible is the prefect instruction book, deserving emulation in all it's teachings at all times.

Apparently, "God-breathed" is just another way of saying "inspired by God":

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... d-breathed
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-breathed.html

Thomas Eshuis wrote:You should either stone disobedient children or you shouldn't.

So where does it say that you are supposed to stone disobedient children?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The bible is the prefect instruction book, deserving emulation in all it's teachings at all times.

Apparently, "God-breathed" is just another way of saying "inspired by God":

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... d-breathed
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-breathed.html

It ignores the context of the text which explicitely states that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
So it's not, unlike some cherry-picking christians like to assert, that it's just the NT or worse, selected parts of the NT, that apply.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The bible is the prefect instruction book, deserving emulation in all it's teachings at all times.

Apparently, "God-breathed" is just another way of saying "inspired by God":

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... d-breathed
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-breathed.html

It ignores the context of the text which explicitely states that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
So it's not, unlike some cherry-picking christians like to assert, that it's just the NT or worse, selected parts of the NT, that apply.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the Bible is God's own words or not. It apparently isn't, even according to your "God-breathed" quote.

In fact, here's your quote from the New King James version:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NKJV

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"

That was my point when responding to your claim that "God-breathed" is the equivalent of the idea that the Qur'an is the infallible word of Allah himself in Islam.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again:

The bible is the prefect instruction book, deserving emulation in all it's teachings at all times.

Apparently, "God-breathed" is just another way of saying "inspired by God":

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... d-breathed
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-breathed.html

It ignores the context of the text which explicitely states that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
So it's not, unlike some cherry-picking christians like to assert, that it's just the NT or worse, selected parts of the NT, that apply.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the Bible is God's own words or not. It apparently isn't, even according to your "God-breathed" quote.

In fact, here's your quote from the King James version:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NKJV

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"

That was my point when responding to your claim that "God-breathed" is the equivalent of the idea that the Qur'an is the infallible word of Allah himself in Islam.

But that was not my claim.
My point was about whether or not the entire bible, OT included, still applies and should be used as a guidebook.
Which that verse clearly supports.

Also, the Gallations bit quoted on the site you linked to, has also been interpeted as saying:
Not that the old laws are abolished, but rather that simply following the laws is not enough anymore to get into heaven.
That you get into heaven, based on faith, which is supported by other verses in the NT.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Again:

The bible is the prefect instruction book, deserving emulation in all it's teachings at all times.

Apparently, "God-breathed" is just another way of saying "inspired by God":

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... d-breathed
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-breathed.html

It ignores the context of the text which explicitely states that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
So it's not, unlike some cherry-picking christians like to assert, that it's just the NT or worse, selected parts of the NT, that apply.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the Bible is God's own words or not. It apparently isn't, even according to your "God-breathed" quote.

In fact, here's your quote from the New King James version:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NKJV

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"

That was my point when responding to your claim that "God-breathed" is the equivalent of the idea that the Qur'an is the infallible word of Allah himself in Islam.

What we have to never forget is that Christianity is less the religion of Jesus and more the religion about Jesus. Traditionally (at least since the rejection of Judaic Christianity) the mainstream view in Christianity has been that the Jewish Law (Old Covenant) has been replaced by the New Covenant of Jesus (the Jewish Law was presented to the Jews not gentiles), what counts for salvation being belief in Christ not observing the Law (as decided for example by the the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15).

Christians can learn from the Mosaic law but they are not under the Law. The reality is that Christianity never had a religious law comparable with sharia. Frankly I have never understood why even this basic fact is so problematic in the view of some here.

Now there are indeed some non mainstream Protestant sects in America (a small minority even among conservative Christians, Reconstructionists etc, beginning in the second half of 20th century) which advocate a very strong involvement in politics (but based on their interpretation of the Jewish Law) yet even these deny that they want to replace the current Constitution and no secret plot to do that has been foiled so far (compare with the well known desire of Hamas affiliated groups in America to 'destroy the enemy from within, see the book Muslim Mafia for example). Finally I can agree easily with the views that Christianity has important problematic parts, we have to criticize them of course, but that it is nonetheless still sizeably more benign than islam.

islam is much more difficult to modernize due to its much more problematic core. My point of view of course, yet wait to see if indeed the future can falsify it.

metacristi wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
Apparently, "God-breathed" is just another way of saying "inspired by God":

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/q ... d-breathed
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-breathed.html

It ignores the context of the text which explicitely states that all scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
So it's not, unlike some cherry-picking christians like to assert, that it's just the NT or worse, selected parts of the NT, that apply.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the Bible is God's own words or not. It apparently isn't, even according to your "God-breathed" quote.

In fact, here's your quote from the New King James version:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... rsion=NKJV

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God"

That was my point when responding to your claim that "God-breathed" is the equivalent of the idea that the Qur'an is the infallible word of Allah himself in Islam.

What we have never forget is that Christianity is less the religion of Jesus and more the religion about Jesus.

It's also more the religion of Paul than Jesus.

metacristi wrote: Traditionally (at least since the rejection of Judaic Christianity) the mainstream view in Christianity has been that the Jewish Law (Old Covenant) has been replaced by the New Covenant of Jesus (the Jewish Law was presented to the Jews not gentiles), what counts for salvation being belief in Christ not observing the Law (as decided for example by the the council in Jerusalem in Acts 15).

Like I said, this cherry-picking behaviour is just that: PDDR cherry-picking.
Nor does it change the fact that 'mainstream' Christianity, whatever that is, is not the only form of Christianity.

metacristi wrote: Christians can learn from the Mosaic law but they are not under the Law.

According to your idiosyncratic interpetation.
Other people and sects disagree with you.

metacristi wrote: The reality is that Christianity never had a religious law comparable with sharia.

Utter nonsense.
Do you need to be reminded of the witch hunts?
That rape victims were forced to marry their rapists?

metacristi wrote: Frankly I have never understood why even this basic fact is so problematic in the view of some here.

Because it isn't a fact, it's a fantasy based on your idiosyncratic, cherry-picked view of Christianity.

metacristi wrote:Now there are indeed some non mainstream Protestant sects in America (a small minority even among conservative Christians, Reconstructionists etc, beginning in the second half of 20th century) which advocate a very strong involvement in politics (but based on their interpretation of the Jewish Law) yet even these deny that they want to replace the current Constitution.

Doesn't change the fact that they are Christians and do believe the OT still applies.
Also, there's a fundamentalist Protestant part here in the Netherlands, which wants to replace the constitution with the bible.
OT and NT.
I'm sure there are similar groups in the U.S.
In fact there are plenty of Christian groups trying to enforce their beliefs on the rest of society:
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/oklahoma_bill_replaces_ap_us_history_courses_with_sermons_ten_commandments_reagan_speeches

metacristi wrote: Finally I can agree easily with the views that Christianity has important problematic parts, we have to criticize them of course, but that it is nonetheless still sizeably more benign than islam. My point of view of course.

And still a subjective fantasy based on personal ignorance of course.

metacristi

Will you quit going on about xtianity as a united body. There are over 41,000 different sects and belief systems that all claim to be the true faith. Most of them would not even walk through the door with each other.

Some are the greatest enemies of each other. This idea of yours that it is one body is so farcical. Do you know in this small country there are villages in the bible belt that were divided by the so called xtian faith. Schisms were the order of the day. Even to this day there are remnants of this with different churches having the most idiotic names.

Here is a list of most of these sects and denominations just to refresh your knowledge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

metacristi wrote:Well 'academicians' I won't interrupt you any more, no point to do it, you can debate at will here.

That was yesterday. And yet, here you are again...

metacristi wrote:
Christians can learn from the Mosaic law but they are not under the Law. The reality is that Christianity never had a religious law comparable with sharia.

True, but they did worse. They cherrypicked in their text to invent country laws "fitting" their book that did the same thing. So yes, those laws weren't written in their book, so what ? Do you think all Inquisition victims made the difference ? All the "witches" burnt ? All the victims of crusades ?
And this is still happening today. So tell me, how is that attitude better that obeying sharia ?

You've been claiming and repeating the same words here, never adressing the points being made. That won't make them true.

metacristi wrote:
islam is much more difficult to modernize due to its much more problematic core. My point of view of course, yet wait to see if indeed the future can falsify it.

True, but it's more a context problem than anything else. Christianity had to fight a very particular set of enlighted people at the same time, coming from the inside. It did fight, and lost.
Today, this context simply doesn't exist in islam. Some people say that islam is living what christianity lived 700 ago, due to the difference in the religions ages. It's a very simplistic view, but not that far from the truth. The difference not beeing age itself, but what comes with it : maturity and intelligence. You can't teach anything to religious people, it has to come from within.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Neceseco wrote:islam is violent at its core.

To be fair, ALL of the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism, Christianity and Islam and the various flavors of these are inherently violent at their core.

Yeah, the OT god was violent at the core. He sure did a lot of slaughtering. But the NT has this presumably weed-smoking hippie called Cheezuz or something who preaches peache, brotha! Never mind the Bible mostly being considered to be inspired by God's word, not God's actual words.

To be fair, there's a lot of talk about Hell. That's maybe bad, but maybe it's OK. The OT has no such concept. There's a place called Gehenna outside Jerusalem where garbage got burned. And there was another place where dead people hung around, but that's a different one.

So, Jesus, either 1) introduced a new, pretty disgusting concept that True Christians would elaborate until it' meant eternal, horrific, torture, which is what Jesus must have meant, or 2) He was basically saying, if you do this, you're garbage, which while a bit snotty, is the kind of thing I quite frequently say, often with ample justification.

I'm not trying to defend Christianity in any way, shape, of form. I think a truly new innovation, the concept of suffering, self-sacrifice, and death on the cross as the meaning of love, is the most purely horrific thing that I have ever seen in any religion or ideology. It far exceeds a hundred Qur'ans and Torahs in it's horror. For, while wars end and officials can be bought, convincing someone to think of love in terms of suffering and sacrifice fucks up culture and individual psychology so well that the afflicted don't even notice, let alone question it.

Still, it's interesting in terms of history and theology. Christianity does have this idea that the nice bits from Jesus override and render obsolete the nastiness of the Old Testament. As you go forward, things get a bit better. Paul fucks it up a bit, and that mushroom trip at the end is more incongruous than Shakespeare's last sonnet and should have probably been called Ezekiel II: This Time with Whores! But still.

Whereas the post-Medina stuff in Islam is, if anything, a lot nastier than the peace and love and bunny rabbits that came before. So it has a lot more theological basis as a trump care.