The New Testament is in the Old Testiment concealed.
The Old Testiment is in the New Testiment revealed.
Apostle Claver tells the world how the real party of racism is the Democrats
Posted on 10/15/2010 11:28:20 AM PDT by Kaslin
WASHINGTON -- Christopher Hitchens -- bald from cancer treatments, speaking between doctor's appointments -- has a special disdain for deathbed religious conversions. Appearing before a group of journalists organized by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life, he criticized the pressures put on Tom Paine to embrace Christianity and the malicious rumors of faith that followed Charles Darwin's demise. "I've already thought about this a great deal, thanks all the same," he explained. The idea "that you may be terrified" is no reason to "abandon the principles of a lifetime."
At this event -- a joint appearance with his brother Peter, a Christian -- Hitchens applied those principles with typical vigor. His arguments on the political dangers of religion are strong. In Turkey or Russia, he notes, "'faith-based' is not a preface to something positive." In Iraq or Iran, a "secular" ruler would be cause for celebration. The alliance of faith and power is often unholy.
But Christopher Hitchens is weaker on the personal and ethical challenge presented by atheism: Of course we can be good without God, but why the hell bother? If there are no moral lines except the ones we draw ourselves, why not draw and redraw them in places most favorable to our interests? Hitchens parries these concerns instead of answering them: Since all moral rules have exceptions and complications, he said, all moral choices are relative. Peter Hitchens responded, effectively, that any journey becomes difficult when a compass points differently at different times.
The best answer that Christopher Hitchens can offer to this ethical objection is himself. He is a sort of living refutation -- an atheist who is also a moralist. His politics are defined by a hatred of bullies, whether Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein or the mullahs in Iran. His affections are reserved for underdogs, from the Kurds to Salman Rushdie. The dreams of totalitarians are his nightmares -- what W.H. Auden described as: "A million eyes, a million boots in line / Without expression, waiting for a sign." Even Hitchens' opposition to God seems less of a theological argument than a revolt against celestial tyranny.
All this fire and bleeding passion would seem to require a moral law, even a holy law. But Hitchens produces outrage, empathy and solidarity without it.
At close range, the pitiless controversialist is actually kind to people he could easily humiliate -- a category to which most of us belong. The ferocious critic of Christianity accepts and seeks the company of Christians. Friendship is a particular talent. One review of his memoir, "Hitch-22," described it as "among the loveliest paeans to the dearness of one's friends ... I've ever read."
In earlier times, without derision or irony, this would have been called "humanism," a delight in all things human -- in wit and wine and good company and conversation and fine writing and debate of large issues. Hitchens' joy and juice put many believers of my acquaintance to shame -- people for whom religion has become a bloodless substitute for life. "The glory of God," said St. Irenaeus, "is man fully alive." Hitchens would hate the quote, but he proves the claim.
Hitchens' career, character and illness have led to an unexpected development -- unexpected, one suspects, particularly to him. While he remains unmellowed, he has seen a flood of affection. His disdain for Christianity, his animus for Islam, can still offend. But we admire the vivid, irreplaceable whole.
Hitchens has now been given his most astounding assignment, a visit to what he calls in a Vanity Fair article "the sick country." His account is raw, honest and impressive. He reports "a gnawing sense of waste" and the loss of "chest hair that was once the toast to two continents."
"To the dumb question 'Why me?' the cosmos barely bothers to return the reply: Why not?" He is, in some ways, a particularly reliable, clear-eyed witness -- unclouded by sentiment, free from comforting illusions, even illusions I view as truths. It is like watching a man assault Everest with only a can opener and a Q-tip. There is honor in the attempt. And the longer the assignment continues, the better for all of us.
At the Pew Forum, Christopher was asked a mischievous question: What positive lesson have you learned from Christianity? He replied, with great earnestness: the transience and ephemeral nature of power and all things human. But some things may last longer than he imagines, including examples of courage, loyalty and moral conviction.
So is it only necessary to follow the law as given by Jesus? Are all of the OT laws nullified by the NT? And if not, is there a reference somewhere that codifies which OT laws are still relevant?
I know it sounds like I’m baiting you, but I ask in sincerity.
Absolutley true...just saying, if one is worried about “how to choose which parts of the Bible to follow,” they can start with that verse and be most of the way there.
See my post to Oztrich and answer it, if you please. The first part about mocking is not something I’d ask you to answer, since you weren’t doing that.
If you’re asking with all sincerity,
it will be necessary that you do some research on your own,
as this is too big of a topic to cover on a discussion board.
My paraphrasing would be a POOR substitute for the Word:
Matt 5:17-18
17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.
The Law stands as The Law. Its intent is to point out the standard to which no man can actually reach, and the necessity of acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice as the atonement for that shortfall.
Read the Gospels first. Then you can read the OT and say to yourself - yes, here is the standard of The Law, and Christ paid for my trangressions thereof.
define "right" and "wrong". Apart from God these words have no meaning as your "right" could very well be my "wrong".
Atheism, if the atheists were being honest, always comes down to "might makes right"
I’m curious as to why those two commandments exist in every religion, except those without a concept of God, which have only the second.
“Atheists continually hijack the principles of the Christian worldview — of life and reality — in order to live and function daily. If I punched one of these loudmouths in the face, the objection would come back...”that’s not nice..” Based on WHAT?”
—I don’t think one needs to “hijack” Christianity or any other worldview in order to realize that it’s not pleasant to be punched in the face.
The golden rule. Do unto others.
Listen to what the subject of this thread has to say on the topic, provided above, and reply to that, if you would.
To say that you believe in something adamantly but just in case you’re wrong you have a `Plan B,’ doesn’t that seem a little craven to you?
Apart from God these words have no meaning as your “right” could very well be my “wrong”.
I actually had someone yesterday who would rather say that he couldn’t judge between Mother Theresa and Adolph Hitler
than he would admit to the existance of absolute standards.
Rejection of absolute standards is easily shown to be either a falsehood or an absurdity.
I’m curious as to why those two commandments exist in every religion, except those without a concept of God, which have only the second.
Romans 2:14-15
14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
Thank you. I will research further.
The New Testament is in the Old Testiment concealed.
The Old Testiment is in the New Testiment revealed.
Apostle Claver tells the world how the real party of racism is the Democrats
Why didn’t you answer the question?
I’ll be glad to answer your query after you answer mine.
Yes, but who says it's wrong to punch someone in the face just because it's unpleasant?
Sorry. I agree that there is no reason to pick and choose if those two rules are the entirety of the law.
He who has the gold, makes the rules?
Do unto others
Then split?
Without God there is no golden rule.
Of course this is time and/or location dependent. Through out most of the last 2000 years, that has not been the case. Inquisition, crusades, reformation, pogroms, and the holocaust were times of near certain death coming across that same group. And we now see an icredible rise in antisemitism that may well again end in christians killing Jews in the future.
Who made yours? God? Where did he provide them? The Bible? Have you actually read the stuff in there?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.