May 12, 2012
-
An Atheist’s Theological Argument
This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:
The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.
According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.
When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.
So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.
/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.
^
(mic drop)
boom
Yes and no. The reason Christians generally don’t celebrate Passover or otherwise sacrifice animals is indeed because Christ dying on the cross is supposed to be a sacrifice of infinite value, freeing everyone from the need to sacrifice.
But on the other hand, it is possible to observe the moral laws without being technically beholden to them, a distinction that you ignore in your treatment of theology. There are few theologians who will argue that being washed free of sin by accepting Christ means you can go out and murder, rape, steal, and so forth, which is where the assertion that Christians are totally free from the law logically leads. How exactly such actions affect a person is interpreted very differently by Calvinists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc., but they generally agree that it is still undesirable to behave in that way. The idea that there is no obligation to follow the moral laws laid out in the Old Testament has been discussed seriously for hundreds of years, and it did not wind up in mainstream Christianity: it is included on Wikipedia’s list of Christian Heresies as Antinomianism.
Between the two extremes of “follow all the laws” and “follow none of the laws,” there is a lot of argument in theological circles about the degree to which old laws should be followed. If you look at the example Jesus himself set, it basically boils down to the idea that the laws exist to help people, not harm them; he intervenes in the stoning of a woman to suggest that he who is without sin cast the first stone (nobody has the stones to be the one to start, so they wind up leaving her alone) and he heals others and allows disciples to pick and eat corn on the Sabbath (violating the rule about not working on the Sabbath.) The one time he really does enforce the rules is when he takes a whip and drives all the bankers (moneylenders) out of the Temple, because he gets angry that people are being exploited and shortchanged in what is supposed to be a holy place.
From what the Bible says about Jesus, I don’t think he would countenance people who want to kill, imprison, or generally make life hell for gays (they are, after all, the modern equivalent of those who wanted to stone a woman for being a prostitute, rather than showing her sympathy) and I’d say that hate-mongering is probably the kind of stuff he has in mind when he says people will appropriate his name to say horrible things (interpreting scriptures to suit political causes is literally older than Christianity.) However, I’m not sure that the best counter to oversimplified religious extremism is another oversimplified argument, and a viewpoint identified with heresy.
Comments (14)
I believe Leviticus was only meant for priests, as well. It wasn’t meant for the common man. I always giggle when I see people quoting from it. It makes their point even more moot.
Correction—the rules in Leviticus are there to show us what sin is and what righteousness is and how we are all hopelessly in need of a Savior as a perfect sacrifice to save us from our sins. The purpose of the code is to show us how impossible it is to follow the code so we realize we need a Savior sent from God, Jesus Christ. But there is a lot of wisdom in the code that highlights for us what good and what is right and how we should act and how we should desire to live. The code shows us what is sin, what is clean and what is good.
There is no righteousness from following the Leviticus code but there are consequences when the code is broken. For example the code says all meats should be cooked before eaten—without following this any person Christian or Jewish or not —would still get the diseases and worms for eating raw meat. There are other things in the code like—do not have sex with children or animals, do not have sex with your son’s daughter–if you find a dead animal do not eat it–if someone has sores on their body and is sick the person should placed be in a separated tent from the rest of the group–a man is not to lay with another man as his wife and the same for women–
It is true righteousness does not come from following the code but that does not mean the code is of no value for it is of value—it shows us what sin is and what is right and wrong. We cannot ignore the code by saying that since we are no longer under it we can go out and have sex with those animals, or eating dead animals we found in the road or molesting children or murdering or adultery or homosexuality or pornography or drinking human blood or hurting innocent people—all this is sin and sin leads to only one thing death. We must choose life and interpret the scripture with God’s heart and not our evil desires to sin rationalizing our journeys as we get closer and closer to eternal damnation. Sin is sin and we still need our Savior Jesus Christ. When Jesus walks by offering salvation to all Christ-followers—we must follow Him to receive what Christ promises to forgive us of—our sins that are as scarlet as can be. Amen–may we all follow god our entire lives!
God Bless,
Brother RobertLeeRE
Either way, there are very clear verses in the NT (LINK) that say it is still a sin to have sex with the same sex. However, (I think) since God gave us free will, then the purpose of the government is to protect rights. So as long as they are both consenting adults, if they choose not to line up with God’s rules, I don’t think God wants us to try to force them to live like believers.
The ethics set forth in Leviticus are still the core ethics of Judeo-Christianity. Jesus died for our sins but he didn’t negate the entire Old Testament.
Christianity incorporated those teachings from the Old Testament that would become integral to Christian morality after the death of Christ.
“According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven… That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.”
That makes about as much sense as mohammad getting set on fire so allah could forgive muslims and black people no longer have to wear afros or cut off one of their testicles.
Arbitrary, random morality codified and indoctrinated so it “makes sense” because it’s assumed to be true from the start.
Reminds me of this.
@agnophilo - I’m a little leery of arguments that appeal to absurdity to mock something believed by people, as absurdity has no bearing on whether or not something is actually true. (Quantum mechanics is not believable by our common sense regarding physics, and leads to many absurd results, but it’s demonstrably true.) Still, it’s certainly a viewpoint you’re entitled to have, and a valid criticism of religion that it often doesn’t make sense to outsiders.
@RobertLeeRE - Thank you for expanding upon that point. Your faith is heartening to see.
@mtngirlsouth - Yeah, this is the debate going on right now in churches – is it really OK for Christians, who are historically oppressed due to their religion, to take the reigns of lawmaking?
@PrisonerxOfxLove - Very succinctly put.
@agnophilo – You are entitled to your beliefs and that is fine with me. I only wish to say that the code is not about morality.
It always makes me laugh, no offense, when a non Christian tries to explain what Christians believe for they usually miss the mark; and I think that is the case also here.
The Leviticus code is about a Father in heaven (Father God, as addressed by Jesus Christ) having eternal knowledge about what things are safe to do and what things are not safe to do. This is not any more morality then a Father who teaches his child to not play with matches or not turn the knobs playing with them on a gas stove that needs to be lit with a match each time the stove is turned on. These things are not morality, rather they are safety issues that a Father has for his loved children who do not know which things are safe to play with and which are potential minefields that could bring great harm to the unlearned undeveloped child. God knows these sins bring unwanted consequences and wishes to protect those who love him.
As far as how arbitrary and randomness this is has to do with the capacity of what God knows and understands in as compared to what man’s capacity of spiritual and physical understanding his brain can handle, (since I am a believer I can only give a believers perspective). The idea is this: A loving Father does not negotiate with his 3 year old why he should [not] play with that dead cat or dead squirrel found in the yard while walking together on a stroll in the grass. The loving Father just says no for the child doesn’t have the actual brain capacity to understand why. Same goes for playing with matches–The Father doesn’t negotiate or go into long details why, only says this and these things are clean and those things are not what to do. There are actual reasons a Father might wish to have absolute trust and attention from the child even if he [does not] understand why. For example if the child is crossing the road and a car is coming [danger upon death] and the Father calls to get the child’s attention to “Stop, do not step out!” So there are times when the Father needs complete trust by the child even when the child does not have the brain capacity to understand why he need to just trust the Father, look at the Father and only know that the rules the Father has are in fact in the best interest for the safety of the child.
Now as far as the reason Christians do not have to follow the Leviticus code because of God’s covenant with Jacob, this is a new one on me. I have never heard of this and have no idea what your talking about. A biblical quote might help. But the most common reason Christians do not follow the mosaic code is Paul’s teaching which covers two thirds of the New Testament. For example Galatians 6:12-16, written by Paul, actually talks about circumcision. In the context Paul speaks he is talking about righteousness sake. There is no reason to follow the mosaic code for righteousness sake. In fact there are 613 laws and regulations that were required to be followed for righteousness and safety sake all mixed together in the Old Testament. Paul’s teaching all over the New Testament is about what makes us righteous and what doesn’t. Paul said if we follow even one law of the code, placing ourselves under the code, we become hypocrites and are judged by God as to whether or not we followed and obeyed the entire Mosaic Leviticus code (613 laws), for it is like spitting on God and saying there was no need for the Some Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice for our sins (past–present &future sins). Now as far as safety sake there are many reasons to follow large parts of the code, things like do not muder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not have sex with children, a man should not lay with a man as he would a woman, if you find a dead animal do not eat it, do not drink animal or human blood, do not eat animal flesh with blood in it, not for morality’s sake, rather for safety’s sake.
But there are many teachers in Christianity that are confused or teaching the bible incorrectly. But what I gave you here is no particular sect of Christianity, rather it is biblical principals I learned by myself from scripture as I understand the bible teaches. If you need any scriptural references email me and I will be happy to help you further your research.
Now of course if your a nonbeliever none of this has to do with you whether Christians believe it effects you or not. I am only giving you a believer’s perspective.
God Bless
Brother RobertLeeRE
@moritheil - Quantum mechanics isn’t self-contradictory, that is the difference. And what, are you saying that anything is valid no matter how little sense it makes? That’s not setting the bar low, that’s getting rid of it altogether.
@moritheil - And have historically oppressed (and do oppress) others. But yeah, where is this debate taking place?
@RobertLeeRE - ”You are entitled to your beliefs and that is fine with me. I only wish to say that the code is not about morality. It always makes me laugh, no offense, when a non Christian tries to explain what Christians believe for they usually miss the mark; and I think that is the case also here. The Leviticus code is about a Father in heaven (Father God, as addressed by Jesus Christ) having eternal knowledge about what things are safe to do and what things are not safe to do. This is not any more morality then a Father who teaches his child to not play with matches or not turn the knobs playing with them on a gas stove that needs to be lit with a match each time the stove is turned on. These things are not morality, rather they are safety issues that a Father has for his loved children who do not know which things are safe to play with and which are potential minefields that could bring great harm to the unlearned undeveloped child. God knows these sins bring unwanted consequences and wishes to protect those who love him.”
So god wants us to cut off our foreskins because it’s best for us? This begs the question – why did he give us foreskins to begin with? I agree that there are passages about hygene and not eating easily spoilable foods like pork or shellfish, but they are couched in moral terms. And if it’s about god knowing what is eternally best for us, why did jesus then say the opposite? Did matches stop being dangerous at some point?
I do think that much of scripture is intended to help and guide people to do what is (in the author’s view) best for them, and that much of it historically was meant to be obeyed, not thought about – but I think those intentions came from the men who wrote it, not a supreme intelligence. You compare leviticus to a parent telling a child not to play with matches, but the text actually says to set people on fire – what parent tells their child that?
“As far as how arbitrary and randomness this is has to do with the capacity of what God knows and understands in as compared to what man’s capacity of spiritual and physical understanding his brain can handle, (since I am a believer I can only give a believers perspective). The idea is this: A loving Father does not negotiate with his 3 year old why he should [not] play with that dead cat or dead squirrel found in the yard while walking together on a stroll in the grass. The loving Father just says no for the child doesn’t have the actual brain capacity to understand why. Same goes for playing with matches–The Father doesn’t negotiate or go into long details why, only says this and these things are clean and those things are not what to do. There are actual reasons a Father might wish to have absolute trust and attention from the child even if he [does not] understand why. For example if the child is crossing the road and a car is coming [danger upon death] and the Father calls to get the child’s attention to “Stop, do not step out!” So there are times when the Father needs complete trust by the child even when the child does not have the brain capacity to understand why he need to just trust the Father, look at the Father and only know that the rules the Father has are in fact in the best interest for the safety of the child.”
I understand the parent analogy. But from a non-believer’s perspective, it makes as much sense (more actually) that educated, literate people were dogmatically telling the illiterate, ignorant masses what was best for them (or what they thought was best for them).
“Now as far as the reason Christians do not have to follow the Leviticus code because of God’s covenant with Jacob, this is a new one on me. I have never heard of this and have no idea what your talking about.”
It was quoted from your blog and wasn’t what I was commenting on at all.
“A biblical quote might help. But the most common reason Christians do not follow the mosaic code is Paul’s teaching which covers two thirds of the New Testament. For example Galatians 6:12-16, written by Paul, actually talks about circumcision. In the context Paul speaks he is talking about righteousness sake. There is no reason to follow the mosaic code for righteousness sake. In fact there are 613 laws and regulations that were required to be followed for righteousness and safety sake all mixed together in the Old Testament. Paul’s teaching all over the New Testament is about what makes us righteous and what doesn’t. Paul said if we follow even one law of the code, placing ourselves under the code, we become hypocrites and are judged by God as to whether or not we followed and obeyed the entire Mosaic Leviticus code (613 laws), for it is like spitting on God and saying there was no need for the Some Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice for our sins (past–present &future sins). Now as far as safety sake there are many reasons to follow large parts of the code, things like do not muder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not have sex with children, a man should not lay with a man as he would a woman, if you find a dead animal do not eat it, do not drink animal or human blood, do not eat animal flesh with blood in it, not for morality’s sake, rather for safety’s sake.”
This is the usual rationalization. I blogged about this awhile ago. It’s interesting that “christ”ianity is based much more on paul’s teachings than jesus’. And that this “we don’t need to follow the old laws” stuff was actually directly contradicted by jesus. But most people don’t want to bash other peoples’ heads in with rocks, so if you give them any excuse not to do it it will be popular, however little sense it makes.
“But there are many teachers in Christianity that are confused or teaching the bible incorrectly. But what I gave you here is no particular sect of Christianity, rather it is biblical principals I learned by myself from scripture as I understand the bible teaches. If you need any scriptural references email me and I will be happy to help you further your research. Now of course if your a nonbeliever none of this has to do with you whether Christians believe it effects you or not. I am only giving you a believer’s perspective. God Bless Brother RobertLeeRE”
I appreciate the thoughtful and polite response : ) Sorry it took me awhile to get back to you, I had a blog get around 20 recs (including one from theodan) so I was swamped with comments for awhile and I think I missed a few replies.
@agnophilo - - There are many things God wants us to do that are best for us. God has given many times, no explanation biblically, as to why we are to follow or do these [what are] seemingly peculiar things only to find out 1000′s years later the health benefits of these practices. For example it says in Leviticus to “not touch” dead animals or “eat them” if they are found dead or laying around dead from some unknown cause. We now know there are certain diseases with Anthrax type symptoms leading to death. Science now knows why one should not eat a dead animal that is found. These things that seem so obvious to us today were not quite so obvious back then.
You also said: “So god wants us to cut off our foreskins because it’s best for us? This begs the question – why did he give us foreskins to begin with? I agree that there are passages about hygiene and not eating easily spoilable foods like pork or shellfish, but they are couched in moral terms. And if it’s about god knowing what is eternally best for us, why did Jesus then say the opposite? Did matches stop being dangerous at some point?”
No, of course not. God wants you to believe Him, that is all. For when you believe Him god forgives you of your many sins. That is all of it in a nutshell. Either you believe God or not. All creation including medical science screams there is a Savior, for your sins and mine, and all the world’s sins. Whether you [do] believe him or not is not the issue. The issue is it is Liberty to choose given to you by God [bestowed on you, that no person can take away. No strongman or dictator can take this Liberty from you. This choice God has given you cannot be taken or used by anyone but you. The issue is not "Is there a God?" The issue is "Do you believe God, do you believe his words?"
Here is some things gleamed from the Internet, mostly Wikipedia, on the benefits of circumcision that seemed appropriate since you mentioned it. There are also numerous medical studies that contradict these. So the bottom line is still "Do you believe God?"
Circumcision reducing the risk of penile cancer, prevention of urinary tract infections. Circumcision remains a relatively safe procedure. "Multiple lifetime medical benefits of neonatal circumcision can be achieved at little or no cost, 1.8% of obstructions in Jews were cancerous, compared with 19% in non-Jews, In several studies, uncircumcised men were found to have a greater incidence of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection than circumcised men,Two studies have shown that circumcised men report, or were found to have, a higher prevalence of genital warts than uncircumcised men,
Circumcision has been associated with a lower incidence of Human Papilloma Virus infection in males in several studies. Some medical researchers have found evidence of a link between a higher incidence of cervical cancer in female partners of uncircumcised men and a higher incidence of penile human papillomavirus (HPV) in uncircumcised men, Penile cancer is very rare in North America and Europe; it accounts for about 0.2% of cancers in men and 0.1% of cancer deaths in men in the United States. Annually, there is one case in 100,000 men in the United States. However, penile cancer is much more common in some parts of Africa and South America, where it accounts for up to 10% of cancers in men, The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated that studies suggest that neonatal circumcision confers some protection from penile cancer, but circumcision at a later age does not seem to confer the same level of protection, On Wednesday, March 28, 2007, the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS issued joint recommendations concerning male circumcision and HIV/AIDS.
These recommendations are:
Male circumcision should now be recognized as an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.
Promoting male circumcision should be recognized as an additional, important strategy for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men
A recent systematic review has suggested that there is strong evidence for a protective effect of circumcision against Syphilis or Chancroid infection, but only weak evidence for a protective effect against Herpes Simplex
A 1988 New Zealand study of penile problems by Fergusson et al., in a birth cohort of more than 500 children from birth to 8 years of age found that:By 8 years, circumcised children had a rate of 11.1 problems per 100 children, and uncircumcised children had a rate of 18.8 per 100. The majority of these problems were for penile inflammation including balanitis, meatitis, and inflammation of the prepuce.
Balanitis, an inflammation of the glans penis, has several causes. Some of these, such as anaerobic infection, occur more frequently in uncircumcised men. Balanitis involving the foreskin is called balanoposthitis. The usual treatment for balanoposthitis is to use topical antibiotics (metronidazole cream) and antifungals (clotrimazole cream) or low-potency steroid creams. One study found more than five times the rate of balanitis in the uncircumcised men in the study group. The most common complication of balanitis is phimosis, or inability to retract the foreskin from the glans penis.
EMedicine says: "Uncircumcised men with poor personal hygiene are most affected by balanitis.
And there is much much more. If I had a son I would definitely follow God's rule and have him circumcised on the 8th day according to scripture. The evidence of health benefits are too great. God is definitely giving special health benefits to those whom follow God. And remember, this was all at a time of no antibiotics, no hospitals or doctors with advances in medicine. So the health benefits must have been even greater between God's followers and the non believers.
You said: "I understand the parent analogy. But from a non-believer's perspective, it makes as much sense (more actually) that educated, literate people were dogmatically telling the illiterate, ignorant masses what was best for them (or what they thought was best for them)."
The parent analogy is closest because we are not even close to being on an equal footing with God. Also this analogy is what God gives us in scripture anyway. But I must say, this is a pretty typical response of an atheist that [thinks] he is almost as smart as God. Scripture calls this foolishness. Another anology scripture uses is that we are like ants to god, Proverbs. That is a real funny one to think you are almost as smart as God! The parent analogy is much closer because Parents purposely withhold information in the best interest of the child. So it does not make as much sense. Also scripture describes on a regular basis this same analogy. So the analogy was not mine, nor from me but God’s analogy. And this entire discussion is about the bible and what is written in the bible whether or not you believe the bible being from God, that is not the issue. The discussion is what [is written] in the bible. So the analogy of what is written in the bible in an explanation of the bible is not only completely appropriate in trying to understand the bible. One would be doing the conversation a disservice to change the analogy when the analogy has been already used time and time again by God and especially by Jesus Christ in his explanation of how to distinguish what is truth and the correct path to get to heaven.
You said:
I do think that much of scripture is intended to help and guide people to do what is (in the author’s view) best for them, and that much of it historically was meant to be obeyed, not thought about – but I think those intentions came from the men who wrote it, not a supreme intelligence. You compare Leviticus to a parent telling a child not to play with matches, but the text actually says to set people on fire – what parent tells their child that?
That is the great thing about it. God has given you the Liberty, to believe him or not. And God has also given the warning, that those who do not believe him will experience what scripture calls the second death. So God is very sad if you choose not to believe him, not to believe his words. But this Liberty comes from God and started in the Garden of Eden. there is nowhere in scripture it teaches to set children on fire. You have no idea what you are talking about with this one.
Why did God give this inside information to Israel only? Because God was in the process of calling Israel out of the world and being a healthier and separate people and a superior people with superior health laws. When God first revealed himself to Abram he called him to leave Ur (Babylon) and go to a land promised him, a land flowing of milk and honey. This and is not only where Israel is today but actually most of the Middle East today where all the rich oil fields are. From the great river of Egypt to the Euphrates river,Genesis 15:18, later confirming with his son Isaac and grandson Jacob, Genesis 26:2-6, 28:12-15, Joshua 1:4-7.
It also says “do not eat meats without cooking them first.” There are countless others like foods that are clean to eat and foods that are not clean, with absolutely no explanation as to why or why not. I suppose if there were explanations that instead of having a bible 2 inches thick it would be maybe ten feet thick!
There are also “behaviors” that cause diseases of the mind and demonic influence and ones that do not. There are also behaviors that cause psychotic diseases of the mind from certain behaviors involved in breaking God’s laws in the Old Testament. For example we see a perfect example of psychotic behavior when scripture describes Cain’s behavior after he killed his brother Able when scripture says Able’s” innocent blood was calling to Cain says from the ground.” Other psychotic diseases come from breaking others Leviticus laws. For example it says in Leviticus a man should not have sex with children. We now know today that when child molesters are caught that it is a very high chance of doing the very same thing and molesting other children even after having spent many years in prison being reformed. This is the fallen state” and disease component of breaking God’s laws and regulations in Leviticus.
God Bless,
Brother RobertLeeRE
I stopped reading after the first bolded paragraph because you totally ignored everything I said and just started preaching at me.
I’ve been listening to, thinking about and responding to everything you’ve said. I’m not in the mood to waste my time when you won’t do the same.
Oh, tumblr. Just let the fangirls and hipsters be. I personally feel that there’s not much use in trying to educate a bunch of people in a space designed to encourage like-minded thinkers to become even more like-minded.