Bhim Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 It matters not whether or not it is logically or rationally relevant; only if they consider it relevant, which they do not. So ultimately there is no point bringing it up because they'll reject it immediately and any discussion trying to justify your use of it will be ignored. In general, discussions with Christians are futile but even more so when you try and use the OT on them. I'd tend to agree, it's very difficult to change a Christian's worldview. For what it's worth though, back when I was a Christian I once debated a Jew on (you guessed it) the messiahship of Jesus. He pointed out Jeremiah 22:24-30, which states that Coniah would be cut off by the Lord, and that none of his descendants would rule as king of Judah. This Jewish person argued that because Jesus is descended from Coniah, he is not qualified to be the Messiah. I remember that this troubled me for days, and brought me to the point of questioning my faith in Jesus. Sadly I did not break free at the time, I ended up finding Haggai 2:23. This passage states that God approved of the governorship of Zerubbabel, who was a descendant of Coniah. The fact that the term "signet ring" was used of both Coniah and Zerubbabel was also fairly comforting. I'm still not certain whether this person's argument is valid or not. But the salient point here is that the force of this person's argument was able to crack my faith in Jesus, if not break it completely. I'm more of an intellectual than the average Christian (something that does not bolster one's Christian faith), so maybe that made me more susceptible to logic. But it goes to show that it is possible to sometimes reach a Christian with reason. Alas, as you say, in general Christians will ignore arguments that differ from their worldview. So the time required to argue a Christian out of his faith might be more trouble than it's worth.
Kurari Posted February 25, 2013 Posted February 25, 2013 Any Christian who thinks the OT doesn't matter is kidding themselves. You can't just ignore God's word. And has been pointed out, the whole story of Jesus doesn't make any sense unless you accept the OT. Then again, Christians have been writing their own fanfic about this moronic book for eons now.
duderonomy Posted February 25, 2013 Author Posted February 25, 2013 Does Jesus himself count, duderonomy? Check out Joshua 5:13-15 and see what you think. Thanks, BAA. BAA, I never was convinced that that passage or any of the others in the O.T. refered to Jesus. The "fourth man" in the fiery furnace in the book Daniel would be the closest one, if I did. Certainly the Hebrews must have believed Joshua 5:13-15 as being true, but none of them would point to the man with the sword drawn as being Jesus.
TheBeast Posted February 27, 2013 Posted February 27, 2013 It depends on the Christian and how much importance they place on a literal interpretation of the OT. Horses for courses.
srd Posted March 1, 2013 Posted March 1, 2013 Unarguably and absolutely. If the bulk of modern Christendom authorizes itself, its beliefs, etc. on the Bible, whether old or new testament, then when and if their claims, beliefs, values, and positions are not supported by the very text that tradition claims to legitimate and authorize these very beliefs, etc .... then yes. And quite frankly one can put forth a very convincing demonstration that the biblical texts themselves do not support modern Christendom. Now, once that has been convincingly demonstrated --- it is a textual argument, not theological which is speculative -- then we as a culture can embark on more serious conversations about religion, authoritative traditions, and the (re)creation of gods and narratives that provide meaning... I am attempting to move us in this directing by addressing a fraction of these textual issues at my blog
QualifiedCommenter Posted March 2, 2013 Posted March 2, 2013 I'm still writing it, but there is a 4-part series of posts I'm writing for my blog where I talk about morality and God. This is something I say in part 3 that applies to this: Granted, I will still say that it makes no difference if those laws still apply or not in the long run. God still commanded them when he could have been better than that, and God still acted in the way he did, which was drastically immoral. In this sort of a way, yes, the OT is certainly a way to argue against the Christian God. God never changes, correct?
srd Posted March 3, 2013 Posted March 3, 2013 I'm still writing it, but there is a 4-part series of posts I'm writing for my blog where I talk about morality and God. This is something I say in part 3 that applies to this: Granted, I will still say that it makes no difference if those laws still apply or not in the long run. God still commanded them when he could have been better than that, and God still acted in the way he did, which was drastically immoral. In this sort of a way, yes, the OT is certainly a way to argue against the Christian God. God never changes, correct? Full of presuppositions.... 1) and God, a god, wrote the 282 law codes of Hammarabi, and Ur-Nannu, and coutnless others I imagine as well .... should we follow these too? 2) God never changes? Have you, our culture, created new gods? Clearly you are not talking about the biblical god http://contradictionsinthebible.com/does-yahweh-regret-and-change-his-mind-or-does-he-not/
Akheia Posted March 4, 2013 Posted March 4, 2013 God never changes, until he does. God never contradicts himself, unless he does. God never lies, until he does. God won't ever hold sons accountable for their father's sins, except when he does all the time. Hell yeah I'll use the OT against Christians. It's the foundation of their faith. Unless one is dealing with a super-liberal Christian, they put a lot of stock in that part of the Bible. It's used to deny me my rights and to persecute the ones Christians have decided are Others. It's used as a "proof" that Jesus was the messiah, too. So yes, I consider it perfectly fair game. What's hilarious is that Christians are happy to consider it part of their canon until it's attacked, and then they distance themselves from it as fast as they can! Sort of like how they view "evidence"--as long as they think they have any, oh my goodness they are all over it, but the second the evidence gets debunked, out comes the sanctimonious whining: "Oh my faith doesn't require evidence..." 2
Recommended Posts