Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Cow Poke]

Until you have shown how the fact that this is a parable changes my point I think you have rather demonstrated that you would rather go for a personal attack than showing an interpretation that would prove my point wrong or unimportant.

Personal attack? That I don't think you understand what a parable is - that's a personal attack?

How bout proving me wrong - explain what you think a parable is, and what is its purpose.

[Mountain Man]

Let me quote again:



The first commandment is "the great and first commandment". But the text clearly says: "and a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” The second one is the one refered to as the golden rule. You said the following about the golden rule:



So you are actually saying that if anyone suggests that one of the two commandments on which all the Law and the Prophets depend is central to Christianity then that person is rather ignorant.

The fact that Jesus identifies one as "the first and great commandment" establishes a clear hierarchy. Without the first, the second has no foundation.

Also, what do you think the phrase "the Law and the Prophets" is referring to? Cow Poke already gave you the answer, so this is a test of your comprehension skills.

[Charles]

The fact that Jesus identifies one as "the first and great commandment" establishes a clear hierarchy. Without the first, the second has no foundation.

Which in no way implies that the second is not central since the Law and the Prophets also depend on it. So you are not even starting to make sence of your statement that something on which the Law and the Prophets depend is not central to Christianity.

Also, what do you think the phrase "the Law and the Prophets" is referring to? Cow Poke already gave you the answer, so this is a test of your comprehension skills.

I think the only comprehension skills we need to question so far are yours since you said a very central part of the Bible was actually not central. However I think going through these things might make it easier to get why I think you are missing something very important. But first let's just go for the encyclopedia definition:

The Law, or Law of Moses, consists of the first five books of the Old Testament, known as the Torah in Hebrew and the Pentateuch in Greek. The Prophets consists of several books grouped into different arrangements according to Jewish or Christian tradition. Read full text here: https://www.encyclopedia.com/environ...w-and-prophets

The Law refers to the first five books of the Old Testament. In these we find the 10 commandments (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). What you will note is the fact that if you actually love your neighbour that implies that you will live within the limits of some of the commandments. What you will also note is that if you love God (in that particular interpretation of who God is) there are quite many others that you will keep as a natural consequence of that love. However, if we focus on the fact that you will keep many commandments as a natural consequence if you love your neighbour, then this shows at least some of the reason why "The Law" can be said to depend on the golden rule. This is also summed up clearly in Romans 13, 8-13:

8 "Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."

Now this could give the impression that love is "only" some sort of "fullfilment" an order, something we must do. MM has stated that the authority behind the golden rule is God. To be honest I think this interpretation my be correct of that particular part in Matthews but Paul had a few words to say that I find rather opening to a wider interpretation:

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 1 Corinthians 13, 1 - 2

Note the words "if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." This would certainly seem to imply that love is very, very, very central. The text actually says you can have faith and not have love. It is interesting to note since many interpreters of Matthew 25, 35 will claim that the good deeds described are not the reason the people are saved but they are a consequence of the faith by which they are saved. This is also part of the text Cow Poke pointet to:

The purpose of the Law was, basically, to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24). Once we are saved, God desires to glorify Himself through our good works (Matthew 5:16; Ephesians 2:10). Therefore, good works follow salvation; they do not precede it.http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post544338

Let's read the verse:

35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

However, according to Paul you can have faith that can even move mountains and not have love. And you can do good deeds without having love. Indeed:

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 1 Corinthians 13, 1

And the famous words by Paul:

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13, 13

Now I am certainly aware that what Paul understands by love is not only love among or between human beings but also love for God.

If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

So he is certainly not claiming your actions will save you. But he is claiming you can do very good things without having love or faith. I don't see how this supports the interpretation CP pointed to.

Also I think the emphasis Paul puts on love though it is in a broader scope than the golden rule makes it very, very hard to support MM's idea that:

To suggest that the "Golden Rule" is central to Christianity is rather ignorant. The central message of Christianity is the reconciliation of God and man through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The "Golden Rule" is simply our expected response to that fact.

To have an understanding of love as an "expected response" to a fact is indeed a narrowminded understanding of love. And as Paul points out you can have faith, you can do good things to others, you can know a lot and even prophecise and if you don't have love it is not worth anything. What Paul is talking about is so much more wider, inspiring, challenging and meaningful than an "expeted response". It is a precondition for there to be any deeper meaning with anything. Let me quote again:

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. 1 Corinthians 13, 13

[Cow Poke]

Which in no way implies that the second is not central since the Law and the Prophets also depend on it....

Wow, it must be a slow day in Charlesville. It wasn't "it" - it was "them". Together.

[Mountain Man]

Wow, it must be a slow day in Charlesville. It wasn't "it" - it was "them". Together.

Yes, and the one is dependent on the other.

[Mountain Man]

Which in no way implies that the second is not central since the Law and the Prophets also depend on it.

I'll go ahead and stop you right there before you go off on the tangent that makes up the rest of your post -- which was actually not a bad exegesis of some basic Biblical principles, but none of them are central to Christianity, or even to the Bible itself. The entirety of scripture is predicated on the existence of God, which is why Genesis 1:1 is the first verse in the Bible. As my pastor says, Genesis 1:1 is not an apologetic but a premise on which the entire rest of the Bible depends. To put it another way, if you reject the first commandment then there's no reason at all to pay attention to the other 9. Or in Jesus' stripped down version, if you reject the first and great commandment then there's no rational reason not to reject the second as well. Knock away the foundation, and the entire structure collapses.

So why should we show to love others?

"We love because [God] first loved us," 1 John 4:19

And how do we know God loves us?

"God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us," Romans 5:8

That is the central message of Christianity. Everything else is based on that one, simple truth.

[Charles]

I'll go ahead and stop you right there before you go off on the tangent that makes up the rest of your post -- which was actually not a bad exegesis of some basic Biblical principles, but none of them are central to Christianity, or even to the Bible itself. The entirety of scripture is predicated on the existence of God, which is why Genesis 1:1 is the first verse in the Bible. As my pastor says, Genesis 1:1 is not an apologetic but a premise on which the entire rest of the Bible depends. To put it another way, if you reject the first commandment then there's no reason at all to pay attention to the other 9. Or in Jesus' stripped down version, if you reject the first and great commandment then there's no rational reason not to reject the second as well. Knock away the foundation, and the entire structure collapses.

So why should we show to love others?

"We love because [God] first loved us," 1 John 4:19

And how do we know God loves us?

"God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us," Romans 5:8

That is the central message of Christianity. Everything else is based on that one, simple truth.

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13, 13

[Cow Poke]

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13, 13

Go thou and do likewise.

[Mountain Man]

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." 1 Corinthians 13, 13

What you seem willfully ignorant of is that none of these verses exist in a vacuum. Love is the greatest only because it is grounded in the one who is love itself.

1 John 4:8, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

No matter what verse you wish to quote from the Bible, it always comes back to God and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is central to Christianity. It is the foundation on which the entire rest of the structure is built, and without this foundation, it's just an empty philosophy.

[Mountain Man]

Also, "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain," 1 Corinthians 15:14.

Without the resurrection, none of the rest matters!

[carpedm9587]

To suggest that the "Golden Rule" is central to Christianity is rather ignorant. The central message of Christianity is the reconciliation of God and man through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The "Golden Rule" is simply our expected response to that fact. While many people love to quote the second half of the "Golden Rule", they always seem to forget the first half:

Matthew 22:35-40, 'And one of them, a lawyer, asked [Jesus] a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”'

You see, without the "great and first commandment", the second commandment is little more than feel-good pap with no moral force behind it. Without the authority of Jesus' divinity, the "Golden Rule" can be heeded or modified or outright discarded as pragmatism demands, making it more of a "Tin Rule". If we were to create a "Golden Rule for Atheists", it could just as easily read, "Never do to others what you can not get away with," or "Always do what is in your own best interest, even if it is not in the best interest of others."

It will always strike me as illogical and irrational to claim to admire Christian ethics while divorcing them from everything that gives them their moral authority leaving you with nothing more than a set of "take it or leave it" guidelines.

I didn't say I admire all Christian ethics, MM. There are many I find repugnant. However, many (most?) of the ethics attributed to Jesus of Nazareth are concepts I value and try to live out. Fortunately, he was not actually the source of many of the more repugnant things from Christianity. Those were added (inevitably?) later.

[Mountain Man]

I didn't say I admire all Christian ethics, MM. There are many I find repugnant. However, many (most?) of the ethics attributed to Jesus of Nazareth are concepts I value and try to live out. Fortunately, he was not actually the source of many of the more repugnant things from Christianity. Those were added (inevitably?) later.

That whistling sound is the point going over your head.

[carpedm9587]

That whistling sound is the point going over your head.

There is a difference between missing the point - and disagreeing with the point.

[One Bad Pig]

There is a difference between missing the point - and disagreeing with the point.

You didn't actually address the point. You either missed it or deliberately ignored it.

[Tassman]

To suggest that the "Golden Rule" is central to Christianity is rather ignorant. The central message of Christianity is the reconciliation of God and man through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The "Golden Rule" is simply our expected response to that fact. While many people love to quote the second half of the "Golden Rule", they always seem to forget the first half:

Matthew 22:35-40, 'And one of them, a lawyer, asked [Jesus] a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”'

You see, without the "great and first commandment", the second commandment is little more than feel-good pap with no moral force behind it. Without the authority of Jesus' divinity, the "Golden Rule" can be heeded or modified or outright discarded as pragmatism demands, making it more of a "Tin Rule". If we were to create a "Golden Rule for Atheists", it could just as easily read, "Never do to others what you can not get away with," or "Always do what is in your own best interest, even if it is not in the best interest of others."

It will always strike me as illogical and irrational to claim to admire Christian ethics while divorcing them from everything that gives them their moral authority leaving you with nothing more than a set of "take it or leave it" guidelines.

This was in the context of Carp’s comment that he admires “many of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth”. He is obviously not, as an atheist making a theological comment. The Golden Rule, minus the mythological aspects re god’s laws and dying and rising etc, is the central essence of Christianity...as it is of many ethical systems throughout human history.

What gives the Golden Rule its moral authority is the fact that we live among other human beings. If we are to do so successfully there are certain basic principles that must observe, including respect and mutual reciprocation regarding other individuals. This is what the Golden Rule is all about.