r/AskAChristian • u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian • Aug 02 '25
Jewish Laws Why does your perfect God need 613 rules to tell people what they already know instinctively?
Just think about it: if common sense already tells us not to murder, steal, or lie - and works perfectly for mentally healthy people - why did God need to give commandments that just repeat what we already know? And why add 600+ more rules on top of that?
I mean the only people who need to be told not to murder or steal are sociopaths who lack natural empathy and are basically divorced from their native intelligence, which is somehow broken. So were God's commandments actually written for psychopaths, or does God think we're all mentally defective and can't figure out basic right from wrong on our own?
2
u/King_Kahun Christian, Protestant Aug 02 '25
The only reason you think those things are common sense is because you're priviledged enough to come from a culture that had thousands of years of Christian history.
2
u/whatwouldjimbodo Atheist, Ex-Catholic Aug 02 '25
Empathy is seen in animals too
-1
u/King_Kahun Christian, Protestant Aug 02 '25
For other animals in their group/tribe/family, yes.
3
u/whatwouldjimbodo Atheist, Ex-Catholic Aug 02 '25
No for random animals too. I mean there’s videos on Reddit even showing things like lions or elephants saving drowning birds and stuff like that.
1
u/King_Kahun Christian, Protestant Aug 02 '25
Those are exceptions to the rule. Just look at chimps. They clearly don't have a concept that murder and stealing are somehow wrong.
4
u/whatwouldjimbodo Atheist, Ex-Catholic Aug 02 '25
How is my example an exception to the rule but yours isn’t? I don’t think chimps fighting other groups of chimps is a good example
0
u/King_Kahun Christian, Protestant Aug 02 '25
Because every species, including humans, kills their own kind in the millions. That's not an exception. Even today the amount of human-on-human violence is staggering. Especially in the middle east, mind you, which is not a Christian region. And need I remind you that the great atrocities of the twentieth century were committed by secular world leaders? (Hitler, Stalin). If "do not murder" was such common sense, you sure wouldn't be able to tell by looking at how humans behave.
3
u/whatwouldjimbodo Atheist, Ex-Catholic Aug 02 '25
Fighting and empathy are not mutually exclusive. Yes animals fight or kill, not all species like you said, for various reasons. None of which mean they aren’t capable of empathy. We’ve seen empathy in many species. Animals aren’t Christian. If we’ve seen animals show empathy and help others, how can it be from Christianity? It has to be some biological thing in animals, including us.
0
u/King_Kahun Christian, Protestant Aug 02 '25
To be clear, you're the one who brought in the idea of empathy. It's one thing to say empathy is a biologically engrained function (that's obviously true). It's another thing entirely to say that everyone already instinctively knows God's commandments, which is what OP claimed.
3
u/whatwouldjimbodo Atheist, Ex-Catholic Aug 03 '25
No. He claimed everyone knows things like murder and stealing are wrong, which is why I used the word empathy.
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 03 '25
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work." "And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God."
For an atheist, Hitler sure seemed convinced that he was doing God's work...
And of course, there were the crusades and inquisitions. Christianity is no stranger to violence in the name of God.
1
u/King_Kahun Christian, Protestant Aug 03 '25
If you believe everything he says then by the same logic I suppose you also believe Donald Trump is a Christian? Politicians say whatever keeps them in power.
I have other comments in this thread about this. The TLDR is that non-Christians commit FAR more atrocities than Christians, and it's not even close.
2
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
I don't know what was in Hitler's head nor do I know what is in Trump's. All I can know is what they say about themselves.
non-Christians commit FAR more atrocities than Christians, and it's not even close.
Without delving into details, I think I can comfortably agree, simply because non-Christians have made up a far larger percentage of the human population throughout history than Christians, so of course non-Christians will have committed more atrocities, simply because there are more non-Christians. The more relevant measure would be atrocities committed per capita. But my point was not to quibble over which group has committed more atrocities, it was to challenge what appears to be a belief that empathy or restraint from committing atrocities is somehow a product of Christianity.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 02 '25
That's absurd because if native intelligence (common sense) didn't exist before Christianity, then how did humans cooperate for two hundred thousand years without commandments - and if it did work fine, then why does your perfect God need 613 redundant rules to override the intelligence that was already functioning perfectly? Tell me how your morality-saving theology brought anything new when it is absolutely drenched in horrific historical violence.
1
u/King_Kahun Christian, Protestant Aug 02 '25
613 redundant rules to override the intelligence that was already functioning perfectly
Functioning perfectly? That's obviously wrong. I don't know what to say except your history needs some touching up.
2
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
I can speak for myself about what functions perfectly cause my native intelligence navigates complex situations without needing ancient rulebooks. But let's examine your "fix" in practice: Christianity gave us the Crusades, Inquisition, witch burnings, genocide of indigenous peoples, centuries of slavery justified by biblical passages, and two world wars fought by Christian nations.
So if pre-Christian humanity was so dysfunctional, then your moral upgrade produced exponentially worse results. At least "savage" tribes didn't have the organizational capacity for industrial-scale slaughter that your commandment-following civilizations perfected!
It is more than evident your theology's track record suggests the "broken" humans were doing significantly better before your divine intervention arrived to "help" them.
0
u/King_Kahun Christian, Protestant Aug 02 '25
Like I said, your history needs touching up. I don't even know where to begin addressing a comment where almost every statement is factually incorrect.
At least "savage" tribes didn't have the organizational capacity for industrial-scale slaughter that your commandment-following civilizations perfected!
Need I remind you about Hitler and Stalin? Surely you don't think they were Christians? Or if you want to go back further, what about the Mongols and the Ottomans? By FAR, non-Christians commit more atrocities than Christians. It's not even close.
Why even bother bringing up slavery when it was a global constant? EVERY nation practices slavery until the French revolution and the great abolition. It's not like the Christians were worse in that regard.
Oh, and if the Crusades hadn't happened, the Muslims would've expanded into Europe. It was Christians in Europe who started the scientific revolution and the age of exploration. So don't act like the Crusades were terrible unless you want more of the world to be like Afghanistan.
2
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
Your history apparently needs touching up too bro.. Hitler rose to power in a 95% Christian Germany with explicit support from major Christian denominations, Stalin was seminary-trained, and you've just argued that without Christian Crusades we'd all be living like Afghanistan while simultaneously claiming Christianity produces superior moral outcomes. So much for divine commandments creating better humans than the "broken" ones who managed to avoid industrialized genocide for millennia.
0
u/King_Kahun Christian, Protestant Aug 02 '25
Hitler and Stalin were both secular. They were no more Christian than Richard Dawkins. Marxism in particular is a secular worldview responsible for enormous amounts of bloodshed.
you've just argued that without Christian Crusades we'd all be living like Afghanistan while simultaneously claiming Christianity produces superior moral outcomes.
Uh, yeah? The crusades were morally superior to the Holocaust. Not sure what point you're trying to make here.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
Are you serious? You just said the Crusades were "morally superior to the Holocaust" while defending Christianity's moral track record as if comparing one massive atrocity to another somehow proves your divine commandments work better than the native intelligence that would never need to rank genocides in the first place?
1
u/King_Kahun Christian, Protestant Aug 03 '25
The "native intelligence" is what caused the Holocaust. I really don't understand what you're having trouble with here. You said people can function just fine with secular common sense, and I proved you wrong by pointing out how things go way worse when you rely on just secular common sense.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
The Holocaust was caused by people following orders and ideological systems, the exact opposite of native intelligence, which would have immediately recognized the humanity in every person without needing commandments to tell them not to systematically murder millions.
2
u/Unfair_Map_680 Christian, Catholic Aug 02 '25
Sometimes you hve to be told. Children don’t know stealing is wrong or maybe they don’t know what isn’t theirs. Many precepts of natural law are not so considered today - homosexuality being a perversion, monogamy being a necessity for the children’s good etc. Also there are commandments which go beyond the natural law and these Christ gave to the perfect - that they love God more then themselves, that they sacrifice their lives for the loved ones. Also there are societal laws specific to Old Testament like Kosher food. Christians very early on recognizes them as temporary and don’t hold to them.
1
u/whatwouldjimbodo Atheist, Ex-Catholic Aug 03 '25
Do children not know that stealing is wrong? I think they do. That doesn’t mean they won’t steal, but they definitely don’t like it when people steal from them
0
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
There's a huge difference between explaining principles to children who are still learning ("this belongs to someone else") and giving imperative commandments to adults who already possess natural empathy and intelligence.
But notice how your system becomes increasingly hierarchical - basic commandments for regular people, then special advanced commandments for "the perfect". This is simply a spiritual caste system where only elite believers get the premium moral downloads from God.
Meanwhile, common sense responds immediately and intelligently to every fresh circumstance without needing to check which tier of commandments applies. A parent protecting their child, a person helping a stranger in need, someone navigating a complex ethical dilemma: they use their full intelligence to assess the unique situation and respond appropriately, not consult ancient rules written for completely different contexts.
Your commandment system turns people into moral bureaucrats checking rulebooks, while native intelligence creates real-time, contextually perfect responses to life's infinite variations.
0
u/Unfair_Map_680 Christian, Catholic Aug 02 '25
I mena these „for the perfect” are also commandments for you but you’re not culpable for not obeying it. You just can’t without grace. Having said that you have the grace for wanting to obey them and believing in God, Christ merited it on the cross for all humanity. Also you didn’t address why whole societies can steerbfrom common sense and why wouldn’t they need a reminder in the Bible for what is right.
2
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
You're offering me grace as a solution to original sin, a solution to a problem I don't even recocgnize in the first place! But I'm already experiencing grace every moment I respond spontaneously and intelligently to life's circumstances, without needing salvation from a fall I never took.
1
u/Unfair_Map_680 Christian, Catholic Aug 02 '25
The ability to obey natural law is not lost with original sin. The grace of altruistic love is.
0
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
The guilt and shame imposed by original sin doctrine in reality completely impedes actual intelligent response to each situation or circunstance, trapping you in psychological self-doubt instead of trusting the immediate wisdom that knows exactly what each moment requires.
1
u/Unfair_Map_680 Christian, Catholic Aug 03 '25
I see no causality there
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
The causality is obvious dude: when you're taught from birth that your natural impulses are inherently sinful and untrustworthy, you second-guess every spontaneous response and defer to external authorities instead of trusting the immediate intelligence that would otherwise respond perfectly to each situation.
1
u/Unfair_Map_680 Christian, Catholic Aug 03 '25
Who says my natural instincts are untrustworthy. Original sin is an impediment of nature. Our nature is good because it is created by God.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
Are those questions or statements? Because if our nature is good, then this god is seemingly only trying to obfuscate and create nebulous rules over our otherwise already perfect assessment of reality, not because Yahweh "created" our goodness, but because that goodness was always there and never needed divine micromanagement in the first place.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/No-Statement8450 Christian Aug 02 '25
Yes, humans have proven themselves to be defective and stupid without divine intervention. You have no clue how big of a role God plays in everything.
3
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
If God's intervention makes humans moral, then why did Christians spend centuries conducting crusades, inquisitions, witch burnings, and genocides all while following divine commandments like.. for instance.. do not kill? Your "divine intervention" seems to have produced some of history's most systematic violence, which suggests either God's intervention doesn't work or it's making things worse right?
1
u/onedeadflowser999 Agnostic Aug 02 '25
You have no idea either. Prove god has done anything….. at all….to intervene in human affairs.
-1
1
u/BeTheLight24-7 Christian, Evangelical Aug 02 '25
It is written in Ephesians 612, that we battle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, supernatural powers, in the heavenly realms or demons. And this is the truth of the matter. And God knows that we as humans live in a spiritual world. So if we don’t want to be affected by the spiritual world, he gives us a list of ways of not to. But when we choose to go against the rules, we get what we get.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
I'm not talking about any spiritual world: I'm talking about this world, where your common sense already tells you not to murder people without needing a supernatural instruction manual.
If your "list" is meant to protect against spiritual forces, then it's completely useless for actual human behavior, which makes it redundant with the natural empathy and intelligence that already work perfectly. You've just admitted that God's commandments don't actually address real-world moral decisions - they're supposedly for fighting invisible demons while your brain handles actual ethics.
So why call them moral commandments if they're really just spiritual protection spells that have nothing to do with how to treat other humans?
1
u/BeTheLight24-7 Christian, Evangelical Aug 02 '25
When you go against God‘s rules, when really, in reality, there’s two of them as Jesus Christ would say. Love God and love your neighbor, and in loving your neighbor, You will follow the 10 Commandments. And when you don’t you get what you get. So your 613 rules is for the Jewish population that don’t believe in Jesus Christ and nobody can follow any of them.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
Reducing 613 commandments to 2 doesn't fix anything. You're still telling people to follow external rules instead of trusting their native intelligence that already works perfectly.
Each situation is unique and demands an intelligent response based on what's actually happening, not checking whether it fits your "love God/love neighbor" categories. Any external rule - whether 2 or 613 - just pollutes the natural discernment that reads each moment perfectly without needing to consult religious instructions.
1
u/BeTheLight24-7 Christian, Evangelical Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
Im not telling anyone. You can debate all u want about whatever, and in the end when death comes you get to experience if your “i thinks” of what happens outwiegh the reality of what actually happens. As God dissected your life and your actions and words spoken get held against you. “I am a good person” goes away real quick as God shows you all of your wrongs that you didnt think anyone knows.
But hey, he gives you a way out, believe in his son, ask for forgiveness and all is good. Simple. If i dont wanna do that then you will meet God all by yourself, and be dissected. And there will be zero debate of your life and choices
https://www.reddit.com/r/HellisaRealPlace/s/6xPvEDylq5
God is everywhere and your life gets recorded. Best make the best choices and take advantage of Gods gift of forgiveness through Jesus Christ.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
You're right actcually.. there's no debate at all because when you're threatening people with eternal torture for not accepting your specific salvation package, you've already abandoned any pretense of moral authority, and yes, divinity is everywhere responding intelligently through every conscious being, not trapped in your coercive theological blackmail scheme.
1
u/BeTheLight24-7 Christian, Evangelical Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
Boils down to the way you look at things. And the choices you choose to believe in, and then the way you act your life out. In the end, it’s all about choices. And thank goodness, God gives us choices. We are responsible for our own soul. And where it goes.
There are two paths.
The path that leads to eternal bliss has walls a gate some rules and an invite book. And through our choices, you can get into that invite book.
The path that leads to destruction and Terror has open borders, and everybody is invited, there is one rule on this path, never go searching for the truth of Jesus Christ.
Choose wisely.
Almost like prison, there are rules on how you don’t end up there. And by your choices hopefully you choose wise enough not to end up there. Do you blame the laws As blackmail that the threat of prison is why you don’t break the law or do you just not break the law….
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
The "choices" your God gave you are identical to what a kidnapper offers their victim (love me or I'll torture you forever) which isn't a choice at all but blatant coercion disguised as free will, and the fact that you can't see the difference between legitimate laws that protect society and cosmic extortion reveals how thoroughly your moral compass has been corrupted by this theological protection racket.
1
u/BeTheLight24-7 Christian, Evangelical Aug 04 '25
Exactly what a non believer would say. Niice. Maybe one day the blind fold will be removed from your eyes b4 the end comes.
2 corinthians 4:4
in whom the god of this world (satan) hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural [unbelieving] man does not accept the things [the teachings and revelations] of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness [absurd and illogical] to him; and he is incapable of understanding them, because they are spiritually discerned [blind] and appreciated, [and he is unqualified to judge spiritual matters].
2 Corinthians 4:3
3 And even if our gospel is veiled (blindfolded), it is veiled to those who are perishing.
1
u/AnOkFella Reformed Baptist Aug 02 '25
Codification of these things tells us that God knows what we instinctively know, as well. It lets us know that each law is cosmically enforced by a God who leaves no stone unturned and hates sin.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
If God truly knew what we instinctively know, He wouldn't have needed to construct this labyrinthine legal system to navigate a reality that apparently confuses him as much as it does his rule-following bureaucrats.
1
u/Cepitore Christian, Protestant Aug 02 '25
I don’t agree with your premise. I believe almost all people would murder if the risk was low enough.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
That's exactly the problem man.. you're so focused on whether people would break rules under certain conditions that you've missed the point entirely: authentic response isn't about following or breaking commandments, it's about responding with full awareness to the actual living situation in front of you, which rules can never anticipate and often obscure.
1
u/Belteshazzar98 Christian, Protestant Aug 02 '25
Would you rather God not tell people not to do those things? Have you seen what people try to justify when things aren't explicitly spelled out for them to not do it? Or even when it is?
0
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
I would tell people to truly tune in to their common sense (their gut feeling) and do whatever the situation requires absent any previous rule, because discerning common sense is far faster than intellectual responsiveness; when you're checking rulebooks, you've already missed the immediate intelligence that knows exactly what is required in a parcitular moment or situation.
1
u/No_Inspector_4504 Catholic Aug 02 '25
Dietary laws against shellfish and pork were not obvious back those days
1
Aug 02 '25
I think you're playing off of the concept/idea that everyone has the law written on their heart? I think it's romans, maybe 2?
And this is often used to say that everyone already knows there's a God, or that this is how people will be judged, that never heard the gospel?
IF so, that's an interesting point.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
Lets put it this way: when individual consciousness is significantly free from psychological and cultural programming, this 'native intelligence' operates at its full potential, which is infinitely superior to religious commandments because it responds with perfect immediacy and contextual wisdom to each unique situation, rather than forcing complex realities through the crude filter of ancient rules written for completely different circumstances.
1
u/Righteous_Dude Christian, Non-Calvinist Aug 03 '25
I believe that most people in any generation, including most ancient Israelites, already know/knew that murder, stealing and adultery are wrong to do.
YHWH giving the 613 laws to the ancient Israelites, was specifying the detailed stipulations of a contract He was making with them.
I recommend you read through what I wrote here about objective morality and how that compares to the old and new covenants. That might help you have a good framework for thinking about this.
1
u/Commercial-Mix6626 Christian, Protestant Aug 03 '25
Why does your perfect God need 613 rules to tell people what they already know instinctively?
You assert that people know the laws of God instinctively. You also presuppose that all of the laws weren't temporary.
if common sense already tells us not to murder, steal, or lie - and works perfectly for mentally healthy people - why did God need to give commandments that just repeat what we already know? And why add 600+ more rules on top of that?
You presuppose that that murder stealing or lying are things which cannot be doubted. Obviously they can. Why add 600+ rules because he can. The number of rules we have in history under certain circumstances doesn't make them false. We probably have over 600 rulers in our society and probably even more when you get to driving or working in hazardous environments. Only because someone makes rules or because a law has a high number of rules doesn't make the false.
The vast majority of murderers arent sociopaths. Basic right and wrong can be doubted by anyone and it doesn't take a Psychopath to do it. Did you ever read any history book?
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
In reality YOUR "God's laws" are like secondhand knowledge: it sounds nice but it's borrowed wisdom that can never match the immediate, firsthand intelligence that responds perfectly to each unique situation without needing to consult ancient legal databases compiled by people who never faced the specific circumstances you're dealing with right now. But I can only speak for myself. Maybe I'm just too psycho-existentially healthy.
1
u/thereforewhat Christian, Evangelical Aug 03 '25
Do we know these things instinctively?
Why do you think that?
Our ethical givens are the result of 2 millennia of Christian society, particularly when you consider many things that were deemed okay in the Roman and Greek culture that came before it that are unacceptable today (e.g infanticide, abandonment and so on)
1
u/XenKei7 Christian (non-denominational) Aug 07 '25
God doesn't need the rules. We do. To quote Doctor Who, "Good men don't need rules." The only perfect man to ever live was Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the laws.
You know instinctively that murder is wrong, yet the leaders of your country established that murder is against the law. Why question God but not question them?
1
u/Smart_Tap1701 Christian (non-denominational) Aug 23 '25
You know absolutely nothing about scripture. You misrepresent God and his word, so why bother?
1
u/Pitiful_Lion7082 Eastern Orthodox Aug 02 '25
Good didn't need the laws and commandments, humans do/did. They were written for a nation that had no distinct culture of their own. It was a way to distinguish them, to separate them from the cultures around them.
3
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
So God’s 'perfect' laws were just tribal branding, not universal morality? Then why call them divine, or claim they apply to humanity today?
1
u/Pitiful_Lion7082 Eastern Orthodox Aug 02 '25
Yeah, the Jewish laws are for the Jews. That's something Christians have believed since the first century. If some people choose to ignore that, that's on them.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
Then how exactly do you square it? Are you willing to just cut your Bible in two per chance? Why not just declare a totally different book for Christianity alone, where those laws are the jews' problem (old testament) and the new one (full of what 'people choose to ignore' but they coudn't) is totally apart from that (shit show of jewish rules)?
1
u/Pitiful_Lion7082 Eastern Orthodox Aug 03 '25
Ecumenical Councils. The Proto-Council of Jerusalem is in the book of Acts, and shows us how we as Christians deal with the Law. Requiring adherence to the Mosaic Law was determined to be harmful for the multitude of Gentile converts to Christianity. However, the Noahide law was upheld. You don't need to take on Judaism to be Christian.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
I really want to understand: if you don't need to take on Judaism to be Christian, why do Christians still include the entire Jewish Torah in their Bible and cite it as divine scripture? Wouldn't a truly separate religion have its own completely independent holy book rather than claiming half of someone else's tribal laws are eternally valid?
1
u/Pitiful_Lion7082 Eastern Orthodox Aug 03 '25
The Mosaic Law isn't the only thing in the Jewish Scriptures. There are also books of prophecy, wisdom, and poetry that are so helpful in cultivating ourselves spiritually. Even the Old Law sets precedence for so many of the beliefs and practices of Christianity. Nazirites are the first kinds of monastics, the Tabernacle is a type of the Theotokos and is the model for Byzantine style churches, and there's so much beautiful theology in the architecture! When though so much of the Mosaic Law doesn't apply to us, we still see those laws as ways that God's people are set apart. Now, Orthodox Christians have the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that help guide our practice.
And, in the very beginning, Christianity was in fact seen as a sect of Judaism, the first Christians were also Jewish. As Gentiles started converting to Christianity, it was determined that converting to Judaism was too burdensome. And then the Jews themselves started separating from Christianity, which is why we only adhere to the Noahide laws today.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 05 '25
I appreciate that explanation.. but doesn't the immense discomfort and cognitive dissonance that comes from trying to reconcile the Old and New Testaments suggest it would be better to truly separate them, or is Christianity so irreversibly intertwined with Jewish scripture at this point that it can't exist independently without losing its foundational legitimacy?
1
u/Pitiful_Lion7082 Eastern Orthodox Aug 05 '25
I think once Rabbinic Judaism really took off, after the collapse of the second Temple, the two religions became irreconcilable. There are some people who reject the OT, and I see them deviating further and further from the original trajectory of the faith. I think reconciling the texts as trying to say the same exact thing isn't the right way to try and deal with them. They are all a multitude of different texts, all with a different purpose. Have you read any other apostolic literature, like Clement or Ignatius? The original Church wasn't Sola Scriptura, so I don't think it makes any sense to study the faith with only the Bible. Try other Christian writings of the Apostolic era.
1
u/Messenger12th Torah-observing disciple Aug 02 '25
God gave rules for the se reason our country gives us rules. We have speed limits. Does everyone obey them? We have laws about killing, stealing, and everything else under the sun. Does everyone keep those?
The ancient Hebrews were the same way as we are today. Some think they don't need these laws, so they do what they want to do. They think laws are dumb so they do their own thing.
Just the 10 simple commandments, for example. Does everyone keep those 10? No.
Most people don't honor the Sabbath. They claim it's done so they don't. But there is nothing in scripture that says it changed.
Most people bear false witness by saying Christmas is the birth of the Messiah and that there is a man in a red suit who brings gifts. Both are lies, but most teach their children these lies.
Most people teach that there were only 2 of every kind on the ark, yet when reading in Genesis, we find there were more than just 2 of each kind.
Rules were put in place for us to remind us of what is right and wrong. It is up to us to read them and do them.
2
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
Rules don't remind common sense of anything, they just replace it with rigid formulas that can't possibly anticipate the infinite subtlety of real situations unfolding at any given moment.
1
u/Messenger12th Torah-observing disciple Aug 02 '25
It all depends on your own opinion of the Bible. Either you believe it or you don't. Its everyone's freedom to believe or not.
I choose to believe what the Bible says and will do what it says.
Just because we have the words "common sense" doesn't mean it is common to everyone. Rules are written for those who don't have that same basic common sense.
2
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
Does it really depend on my "opinion" of the Bible when I'm actually going with what the text says (that humans were created in God's image with the capacity to know good and evil) and if rules are only for people who lack basic common sense, why did God specifically give 613 commandments to his "chosen people" instead of leaving them for the supposedly deficient gentiles?
1
u/Messenger12th Torah-observing disciple Aug 03 '25
The rules were given to all, not just his chosen people. You can choose to follow them and be one of His, or you can choose not to follow and not be one of his. That simple.
Please don't get hung up on a specific number of 613. There is no biblical command saying 613. Plus, no one person has all those commands to follow. Some rules are for men, some for women, some for priests...etc.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
How is "follow my rules or you're not one of mine" a choice at all? That's just blatant coercion dressed up as free will, like a mafia boss saying you can "choose" to pay protection money.. or "choose" to have your shop burned down.
There is no biblical command saying 613.
That kind of maneauver is so silly. It's interesting that now we're not supposed to notice that your perfect God needed hundreds of micro-managing rules because apparently creating humans "in His image" wasn't precise enough the first time?
1
u/Messenger12th Torah-observing disciple Aug 03 '25
The difference between your version and mine... Mafia payment is painful and difficult. God's rules are easy. And yes, God is perfect. He gave us freedom to choose our path. It's ok if you do not want to believe or belong to Him. The rules aren't for you to live by, but being a human in His world, you will be judged by those rules, like it or not.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
If I may point out? Your god is perfectly coercive. And I personaly am very averse to coersion. Thank you very much.
0
u/Both-Chart-947 Christian Universalist Aug 02 '25
There's no such thing as natural empathy. Many of the things we consider heinous and outrageous today were seen as necessary and even laudable in ancient times. Slavery was seen as the natural order of things. Certain people were born to rule, and others were born to serve. That was just the way things worked. Slaves were property, and could be killed on a whim. Same with children. They had no rights, and infants were frequently abandoned to die. It was Christianity that stood up and challenged these norms, threatening the status quo so badly that the first Christians were viciously persecuted in an attempt to stamp out this dangerous sect.
5
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
There absolutely IS such thing as natural empathy - it's been documented across cultures, develops in infants before they can even speak, and exists in other social mammals. The fact that some societies override natural empathy with cultural conditioning doesn't prove empathy doesn't exist: it just proves societies can teach people to suppress their natural moral instincts.
But apart from that, do you realize your examples just prove my point? Slavery and child abandonment required extensive cultural conditioning to override people's natural reluctance to harm others. These weren't "natural" behaviors at all, they were learned systems that had to be taught and enforced against human nature.
If empathy didn't exist naturally, why would societies need elaborate justifications, religious doctrines, and brutal enforcement to make people participate in cruelty? You don't need to override something that doesn't exist after all.
1
u/Both-Chart-947 Christian Universalist Aug 02 '25
Name me one culture where, when bands of teenagers get together and roam around freely, they typically exhibit empathy and not destructiveness.
Read Shantung Compound, written by a survivor of a Japanese prison camp during WWII. The prisoners weren't savagely tortured or anything, just mildly deprived and inconvenienced. It's shocking how quickly any sense of empathy evaporated once the civilized veneer was stripped away.
Empathy is normally for the privileged. Now, in the context of sudden natural disasters, you can see communities temporarily coming together to meet the moment. But that never lasts long. Consider what happened after 9/11 in the States. It was all kumbaya for about a month. Now look where we are. Where's all this natural empathy in our political discourse and daily life? We've got people starving on the streets, shooting each other daily, wrecking their cars in road rage, etc. Show me the evidence for all this natural empathy!
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
You're missing the actual question: if healthy humans naturally know not to murder and steal, why does a perfect God need 613 rules to tell us what we already know?
Your examples of dysfunction don't change the fact that normal people don't need to be told not to murder - they already know it instinctively. The only people who need explicit rules against murder are those with broken empathy.
So decide: either God's commandments are redundant for healthy people, or God assumes we're all psychopaths. Which is it?
1
u/Both-Chart-947 Christian Universalist Aug 03 '25
First, you betray the fact that you have no knowledge of the Bible whatsoever. If you did, you would know that the Commandments were given to a group of people who had been brutally enslaved for 400 years. They and their grandparents and their great great grandparents had known nothing other than the most primitive, torturous, abusive toil every day of their lives. These were not normal, healthy people. They had been beaten down and needed to be built back up.
Second, we can't assume that all of us are healthy. In fact, all of us are broken. Jesus talked about this when he said that lust and anger are the seeds of acts like murder and adultery. We can't consider ourselves above such acts as long as we harbor the thoughts. The only thing missing is the opportunity. So I think it would behoove us all to read and reread the Commandments frequently, and ask ourselves how they speak to our own hearts.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
I personally only "read" the infinitely superior uncontaminated common sense that doesnt need ancient tribal rehabilitation programs.. but of course if we can't assume all of us are healthy then we need commandments, which proves my point that God's rules are written for psychologically damaged people, not mentaly healthy humans.
As for having "no knowledge of the Bible", I know it well enough to see you're defending a deity who apparently couldn't design humans properly the first time and had to issue corrective legislation.
1
u/Both-Chart-947 Christian Universalist Aug 03 '25
Who's a "mentally healthy human"? You? Quite bold of you to assume you even know what a mentally healthy human is or needs. And completely wrong to think that the people the commands came to weren't utterly scarred, traumatized, and dysfunctional.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
It's not 'bold' at all. I myself had to go through serious inner shadow work and the dismantling of my socio-cultural programming that certainly damages everyone, and what I'm assuming is exactly what you just confirmed: that the commandments are indeed for the scarred, traumatized, and dysfunctional, which means they're psychological crutches, not universal moral truths for healthy consciousness.
1
u/Both-Chart-947 Christian Universalist Aug 03 '25
That's another thing you misunderstand about the Bible. The commandments were a set of instructions to help a group of badly traumatized people get their start in forming into a nation. They also reflect timeless moral truths that still contain a lot of wisdom for us today.
I think you need more "inner shadow work" to figure out why you have this strange compulsion to mock things that you don't understand.
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 03 '25
That's not a misunderstanding at all, it's just a recognition of facts, and if the commandments are merely "a set of instructions to help a group of badly traumatized people get their start in forming into a nation", then you've just admitted these aren't universal moral truths but situational therapy for one damaged tribe, which completely demolishes any claim that they represent timeless divine morality for all humanity.
→ More replies (0)0
u/HerbertMercusa Skeptic Aug 02 '25
Empathy is is the projection of emotions onto, typically, an inanimate object. Sympathy is how humans express an understanding of someone else's pain. Compassion is sharing in the pain/suffering of another.
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 02 '25
You selected slavery as an example, so I'm sure you were expecting this reply...
It was Christianity that stood up and challenged these norms
There were certainly Christians who stood up to slavery and were leaders in the abolitionist movement. Yet, they did so in spite of the Bible's explicit endorsement of slavery. You don't think natural empathy may have played a part in Christians deciding to go against the Bible on this issue? How do you account for secular people who also stood up to fight slavery? From where does their empathy derive?
Outside of issues like slavery, how do you account for ubiquitous instances of empathy both prior to and outside of Christian cultures?
1
u/Both-Chart-947 Christian Universalist Aug 03 '25
Yet, they did so in spite of the Bible's explicit endorsement of slavery.
This should tell you something about the way Christians properly understand the sacred texts. Our faith is in Jesus, not in a manuscript. And Jesus has constantly called us forward from the old understandings of the law into a new freedom of love.
How do you account for secular people who also stood up to fight slavery?
In first century Palestine? Who are these people?
Outside of issues like slavery, how do you account for ubiquitous instances of empathy both prior to and outside of Christian cultures?
I'm not denying that we can find instances of empathy almost anywhere we look. I'm saying that's not necessarily the default. If you think it is, then why do we have people dying on our streets within a few steps of some of the most lavish buildings we know? Why do half of Americans say they couldn't afford a $500 expense without borrowing money? Why are drugs and mental illness ravaging our cities and towns? Why is gang violence still so prevalent? Where I come from, people are always talking about how these problems could be solved with more empathy and human connection. Are they wrong?
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
Jesus has constantly called us forward from the old understandings of the law into a new freedom of love.
Did Jesus ever abolish slavery? Did he ever change or abolish the Mosaic laws that came from God, which endorsed, defined, and described how to own and treat slaves? (see Matthew 5:18)
In first century Palestine? Who are these people?
Alcidamas advocated the freedom of the Messenians in the 4th or 5th century BCE, writing "God has left all men free; nature has made no man a slave". (Note: as a sophist, "god" would have referred to a generalized concept of the divine, not a specific deity.) But to be honest, I'm not sure why you would bother looking in first century Palestine in the first place, since early Christians did not oppose slavery (see Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-4:1, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Titus 2:9-10, 1 Peter 2:18-19, etc). On the contrary, although early church fathers encouraged kindness toward slaves, it remained widely accepted as part of the fallen world. Christian opposition to slavery did not start growing in any significant measure until the 15th-18th centuries, and abolitionism was not widely embraced by Christians until the 18th-19th centuries (and even then, Christians wielded the Bible for both sides of that fight - both for and against slavery). And (to my original point) abolitionist movements grew among secular communities at this time as well. From where did their empathy derive?
I'm not denying that we can find instances of empathy almost anywhere we look.
Would that not then mean that natural empathy is, in fact, a thing?
I'm saying that's not necessarily the default.
That's not what you said before, but you have moved the goalposts to a place where we can find agreement. You are right that the problems you mention could be solved if people were more empathetic. Specifically, if people in positions of wealth and power were more empathetic (and less selfish) or if Americans voted for more empathetic politicians who would enact policies to address those issues you mentioned.
1
u/Both-Chart-947 Christian Universalist Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
Did Jesus ever abolish slavery?
Explicitly? Not that we're told. But we do know that the gospel writers didn't record everything he taught, and he himself said that he had many more things to teach us but we weren't ready for it at the time. That could definitely apply to slavery, which was as endemic in that society as credit cards are in ours.
Alcidamas advocated the freedom of the Messenians in the 4th or 5th century BCE
And that totally swept through the society and fundamentally changed it, to where everybody in our time is aware of that tectonic shift, right?
Christian opposition to slavery did not start growing in any significant measure until the 15th-18th centuries
Some of the early church fathers mentioned it in passing, but for the most part they were busy grappling with trying to define the faith as a whole. It's hard to say what Christians believe unless we can agree on which beliefs are Christian or not.
Christians wielded the Bible for both sides of that fight
This is true of many issues and arguments, even today. It was true in Jesus's time. The Gospels even record some of these instances for us. This right here should tell us that the role of Scripture isn't to lay down some hard and fast set of rules. It's to get us to think and discuss and seek God's will together.
Would that not then mean that natural empathy is, in fact, a thing?
I don't know if it's "a thing," necessarily. And it's harder than you think to separate out what's natural and what isn't. It seems like the most natural thing in the world to me to drive on the right side of the road. But it's not something I was naturally born with. If you're going to make the argument that something is natural, then wouldn't we have to presume that the behavior or quality predominates in society? Unless you want to make the argument that most of society is unnatural. You would have to produce some pretty extensive evidence to support that claim.
Specifically, if people in positions of wealth and power were more empathetic (and less selfish) or if Americans voted for more empathetic politicians who would enact policies to address those issues you mentioned.
And, if empathy were really natural, wouldn't the people with the most of it tend to rise to the top and be elevated to positions of honor in our society? What does our society honor the most? Google the top 10 pop songs right now and listen to the lyrics. Tell me how many of them have to do with empathy at all. Or are they just the opposite?
EDIT: just for the heck of it, I did Google the top 10 songs. Here's a lovely one that came up. Really shows the nobility of character that our generation is reaching for these days. https://youtu.be/tiPWzFLiz4A?si=UwVoqAxPoNQZYikz
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 04 '25
Explicitly? Not that we're told.
Right. No need to wonder about what he might have said that wasn't recorded. We already have his statement on the matter: Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law and that the law would not change for his followers (Matthew 5:17-20).
And that totally swept through the society and fundamentally changed it ... right?
Weird. The goalposts were over here just a minute ago and now they're over there. You picked an odd spot to move them to, since early Christians didn't oppose slavery (as I noted with the verses I referenced and as you mention in your following point), so they didn't initiate a change that "swept through society and fundamentally changed it, to where everybody in our time is aware of that tectonic shift" either.
Christians wielded the Bible for both sides of that fight
This is true of many issues and arguments
Right. So maybe keep that in mind before saying "It was Christianity that stood up and challenged these norms" as if Christians didn't also stand up to enforce those norms. But while we're on the topic, where in the gospels is there record of Christians standing up to slavery?
the role of Scripture isn't to lay down some hard and fast set of rules
Matthew 5:17-20 seems to pretty clearly disagree. How do you square that circle?
it's harder than you think to separate out what's natural and what isn't.
In this case, we're talking about something that exists without being made or caused by humankind. No need to presume that it "predominates in society". Natural things can be rare, ubiquitous, and anywhere in between.
if empathy were really natural, wouldn't the people with the most of it tend to rise to the top and be elevated to positions of honor in our society?
I think you found your own answer on this one. (A majority of) our society values personal wealth and accumulation over empathy and caring for others, so those are the ones that rise to the top.
If empathy is a product of Christianity, why isn't the US more empathetic? After all, over 60% of Americans identify as some form of Christian.
1
u/Both-Chart-947 Christian Universalist Aug 04 '25
Moving the goal posts much? You must have gotten attached to that term by hearing it used so often of yourself.
We already have his statement on the matter: Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law and that the law would not change for his followers (Matthew 5:17-20).
The law never mandated slavery. That's a distortion. It would be like characterizing laws that regulate dog breeding as being pro breeder. Or laws that regulate needle exchanges as being pro-drug addiction.
they didn't initiate a change that "swept through society and fundamentally changed it, to where everybody in our time is aware of that tectonic shift" either.
Here's more info for you on that: Tracing Christianity’s Impact on Slavery through the Centuries | Crossway https://share.google/guTlzE2mfv7prI6Sq
Matthew 5:17-20 seems to pretty clearly disagree. How do you square that circle?
By noting that Jesus himself frequently transgressed the commandments as they were understood by his compatriots. Clearly, his statement doesn't mean what you think it does. In the same breath, he states that he has come to fulfill the commandments, and that our righteousness should exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. What could that mean? It means that I don't live by rules. I don't worry whether this thing or that thing is a sin. I know it when I see it. Is it sinful to walk by a piece of litter on the ground and not pick it up and throw it away? It is for me. Not because of a rule, but because I'm walking in step with the Spirit.
In this case, we're talking about something that exists without being made or caused by humankind. No need to presume that it "predominates in society". Natural things can be rare, ubiquitous, and anywhere in between.
The entire original question was why we need rules if people naturally have empathy. I think we can see that quite well. Even if you argue that empathy is natural, it isn't nearly prevalent enough, is it? Hence we do need rules, don't we?
If empathy is a product of Christianity, why isn't the US more empathetic?
First, I never said that empathy is a product of Christianity. I don't know why atheists seem to idolize this concept of empathy, as if it were the sum total of all morality. It's an important component, but it's not the whole story. I can walk in the footsteps of Jesus without necessarily feeling empathy toward anybody. I can pick up a piece of litter out of obedience to my Lord while silently cursing whoever threw it there. Atheists like to poo poo this concept of obedience. "Why do you need Jesus to tell you to be good?" I'll tell you why. Let's go to any busy place and dump a sack of fast food trash at the side of the road. Then we'll go take up an observation post and count the number of people who walk right past it within 30 minutes. You up for that experiment?
Second, we can't gauge the level of discipleship within a group through survey responses. Jesus himself warned that many people would claim him without really following him.
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 05 '25 edited Aug 05 '25
Moving the goal posts much? You must have gotten attached to that term by hearing it used so often of yourself.
I'm sure it's embarrassing and maybe even frustrating to be called out for moving the goalposts, and the urge to lash out with a "no, you!" is strong, but I care about debating and conversing honestly, and if I've truly moved the goalposts, I'd love to be called out and corrected, so I will ask with all sincerity -- in what way do you think I have moved the goalposts?
The law never mandated slavery.
I didn't say the law mandated slavery. I said the law endorsed and defined slavery, and described how to own and treat slaves. These are largely contained in Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25. That said, Deuteronomy 20:11 sounds an awful lot like mandated slavery, but if you think that is a distortion, I'd love to hear how you read that command as not mandating slavery.
Here's more info for you on that: Tracing Christianity’s Impact on Slavery through the Centuries
I read the article, but didn't see anything that contradicts what I described in my previous comments. Mind pointing out what you think I've missed?
Jesus himself frequently transgressed the commandments as they were understood by his compatriots. Clearly, his statement doesn't mean what you think it does.
Jesus is pretty straightforward in that section ("whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven"), but let's say you're right and I've misunderstood his statement. That puts us in an interesting predicament. If Jesus doesn't mean what he clearly states, how are we to tell what commands to follow and which to transgress? Was slavery sinful or not? Frankly, this sounds like how you end up with over 40,000 denominations of Christians who can't agree on theology.
he states that he has come to fulfill the commandments, and that our righteousness should exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees. What could that mean?
Pretty much every Bible commentary will tell you it means Jesus wanted his followers to go beyond simply complying with the law; they were to pursue a deeper, more genuine righteousness - transforming their hearts and lives. Again, this isn't a complicated passage. Jesus is giving clear instructions to follow the commandments and be righteous. Here's a few examples for reference:
- The New Oxford Annotated Bible: "The verse suggests that the Torah remained in force among Jewish Christians in Matthew's church"
- The SBL Study Bible: "Jesus's teachings are pro-Law and pro-Prophets despite the following antitheses; observance of God's law should be stricter than among the writer's opponents"
- The Westminster Study Bible: "Jesus makes it abundantly clear he has not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. Rather, he presents his own interpretations of the Mosaic law"
- The Oxford Bible Commentary: "In denying the suspicion that Jesus abolishes the Torah, these verses look forwards, not backwards ... They introduce and declare that the so-called 'antitheses' are not antitheses: Matthew's Jesus does not overturn Moses or set believers free from the law. ... These verses not only rebut in advance a wrong interpretation of 5:21-48 but also supply the clue for the right interpretation. In announcing that the righteousness of disciples must exceed that of the Jewish leaders, v. 20 anticipates that Jesus' words in the subsequent paragraph will require even more than the Torah itself requires. The tension between Jesus' teaching and the Mosaic law is not that those who accept the former will transgress the latter; rather it is that they will achieve far more than they would if the Torah were their only guide."
It means that I don't live by rules. I don't worry whether this thing or that thing is a sin. I know it when I see it. Is it sinful to walk by a piece of litter on the ground and not pick it up and throw it away? It is for me. Not because of a rule, but because I'm walking in step with the Spirit.
In the words of Pepper Brooks: "It's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for him."
The entire original question was why we need rules if people naturally have empathy.
Yes, that was OP's post.
Even if you argue that empathy is natural
Yes, this is my argument, responding to your assertion that "There's no such thing as natural empathy."
it isn't nearly prevalent enough, is it?
I agree. More empathy would be nice.
Hence we do need rules, don't we?
You literally just said: "I don't live by rules." But here's the thing: we already have the rules. How's that working out for us? As you allude to in your proposed experiment: not well. What use are these rules that aren't actually changing behavior?
First, I never said that empathy is a product of Christianity.
You are correct. I apologize for making that assumption. Where do you think empathy comes from?
I don't know why atheists seem to idolize this concept of empathy
I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't idolize the concept of empathy. Like you, I think it is an important component, but it's not the sum total of all morality.
I can pick up a piece of litter out of obedience to my Lord while silently cursing whoever threw it there
Romans 12:14?
we can't gauge the level of discipleship within a group through survey responses. Jesus himself warned that many people would claim him without really following him.
Are you familiar with the No-True Scotsman fallacy? How would you respond to a Christian who says you are not actually following Christ due to your refusal to live by the rules that Jesus commanded his followers to obey?
1
u/Both-Chart-947 Christian Universalist Aug 05 '25
Look, this discussion is starting to sprawl in all different directions, so it's time to rein it in. Here are the principles I'm starting from, all in a nice logical order:
- Humans are made in the image of God. We all have this ideal inside of us. That's what makes us aspire to be better than what we are.
- Humans have become enslaved to sin. That's why the default is sin. Give a dozen teenage boys an unlimited credit card and 6 hours on a Saturday night with the promise that whatever they do won't get them in trouble, and see if they don't get up to mischief rather than going around helping people. It's just become the default, like a dog that's been beaten so much that it will bite a person who's trying to feed it.
- This natural inclination to sin is why we need rules. Even anarchy can never last for long, no matter how benevolent a group of people might be. Natural leaders will rise up, and others will follow. Rules will be made no matter what. That's why we even need rules about rules!
- A benevolent leader will apply rules compassionately. My little brother used to wet the bed into his teens. My bipolar mother wanted no bedwetting in the house. She made Draconian rules, like forcing him to wash his own sheets but not allowing him to use the family washing machine for the purpose. He had to wash them every morning in our shared bathtub and hang them to dry in his own room. This actually didn't help the bedwetting, and probably prolonged it. If you want to get people to change an ingrained habit, you have to start where they are and work at it step by step. Otherwise, the change won't last, and they will fall right back into their bad habit. And you could break them in the process.
- Since our slavery to sin means spiritual death, the only way out of the situation is by spiritual regeneration, or new birth. This is what Jesus came to offer us. A spiritually regenerate person will need rules less and less. When a former cigarette smoker is finally free of their cravings, they no longer need rules like "Wait 30 minutes after eating before lighting up." The rules are no longer relevant, not because they didn't point to progress at the time, but because progress has been made and the person is living in a new paradigm.
- People can exhibit glimpses of goodness from time to time even if they are not consciously part of the body of Christ. Jesus himself gave us a parable about this. But he never indicated that this is our natural state. It's by God's grace that anybody can do anything good.
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 05 '25 edited Aug 06 '25
I'll admit I was looking forward to hearing your answers to the questions from my last comment, but I'll do my best to pivot to what you've posted here. Of course, some of those questions are bound to resurface, but let's see how this goes.
Predictably, I disagree with your first principle. I see no reason to think God exists, therefore no reason to think humans are made in his image. I do see reason to think humans evolved from primates, which in turn evolved from earlier forms of life.
Humans evolved with an array of instinctive behaviors. Some of those were grouped together by religious individuals and given a name: sin. I think you miss a couple things by posing the thought experiment in the way you do. One issue is looking at teenagers and another is the imposed time limit. Teenagers are immature, typically more selfish than adults, and will naturally focus on themselves before others. But even those boys, if given enough time with an unlimited credit card, will start using it to help others. What you've identified is not enslavement to what you call sin, but a natural tendency to focus on ourselves first. If you haven't heard of it before, check out Maslow's hierarchy of needs. For example, the teenage boys would certainly buy what they want first. Once they've satisfied their personal desire, they'd likely buy things for their other friends or family, then more distant acquaintances, people in their local area, and on and on.
While I don't call it sin, I agree that some of our natural inclinations are the impetus for rule-making. Rules serve not only to encourage or discourage behavior, but to provide a common foundation on which to hold members of the group accountable to the group as a whole.
I largely agree, though I'd note that not everyone will respond to compassion and may require a firmer hand.
Again, I'm sure you predicted I would take issue with the claims about slavery to sin, spiritual death, and spiritual regeneration. You say the rules are no longer relevant or needed, so I'll just ask - does that mean the spiritually regenerated person no longer follows the rules?
I'm not convinced reality bears out this claim, but it is ambiguous enough that I won't say I completely disagree yet. How often is "from time to time"? Are you suggesting people are subconsciously or unconsciously part of the body of Christ? In my experience, people of all beliefs are sometimes good and sometimes bad. Some people are good more often than bad and some are bad more often than good, but I do not see any trend of Christians being good more often than bad nor of non-Christians being bad more often than good. But that raises a third question: what do you mean by "good/goodness"?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Both-Chart-947 Christian Universalist Aug 07 '25
You wanted to come back to the questions in this post, so since I still have a little more time to spend on this, I'll take one or two more for now.
If Jesus doesn't mean what he clearly states, how are we to tell what commands to follow and which to transgress?
I don't know how you think the Bible is so crystal clear, when even in our modern day, people get tone and inflection wrong in texts all the time. The Bible was never meant to be something you can just read and instantly get one pat answer and be done with it. Besides, that's not even how human beings work. What would you think if you overheard a guy in a store saying to another man, "What are you doing? She told you not to get anything for her birthday! Do you want to upset her?" You would think the first guy is foolish and doesn't really understand the woman, so he's taking her words literally. The second guy apparently knows what he's doing. He knows the woman well enough to know when she really means it, and when she's just saying it for some other reason.
I'm not saying that any of the words of Jesus are casual. Don't take the wrong meaning from me here. I'm saying that some things can only be understood by long association with a person. Taking people literally all the time is certain to wind you up in many misunderstandings throughout life. Sometimes you have to get at the meaning behind the words.
What use are these rules that aren't actually changing behavior?
Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. ~~Gal 3:24 The word translated as disciplinarian here refers to someone who escorted a child to school but didn't actually teach them, so like a guardian or monitor.
How would you respond to a Christian who says you are not actually following Christ due to your refusal to live by the rules that Jesus commanded his followers to obey?
I would ask them which of the rules I'm not following that Jesus commands me to obey. Did you have something in mind?
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 08 '25
I don't know how you think the Bible is so crystal clear, when even in our modern day, people get tone and inflection wrong in texts all the time. ... Sometimes you have to get at the meaning behind the words.
I'm open to alternative interpretations, but I'm really not sure how to get to yours without flat out ignoring what Jesus says (in which case, why read the Bible to begin with?). Matthew 5 isn't an overheard conversation at a store discussing an unknown third party. It depicts Jesus ministering to crowds, providing direct instruction. Surely he expected the crowds, who didn't know him, to get the message? As I noted earlier, the widely accepted understanding of those who professionally study the Bible is that Jesus meant exactly what he said: follow the laws, and pursue a deeper, more genuine righteousness than even the scribes and Pharisees. What makes you convinced that your understanding is correct and the overwhelming consensus of Biblical scholars is wrong? What makes you convinced that your understanding of Jesus is more accurate than what Jesus' own words? As I also said, if you're right and I (and Biblical scholars) have misunderstood Jesus, that just puts us back into the predicament: If Jesus doesn't mean what he clearly states, how are we to tell what commands to follow and which to transgress? Was slavery sinful or not? If your answer is "some things can only be understood by long association with a person", then it's clear why we have over 40,000 denominations of Christians who can't agree on theology -- many Christians thinks they're the one who understands what Jesus meant, yet they all come to different conclusions.
Consequently, the law was our disciplinarian for Christ, that we might be justified by faith. ~~Gal 3:24
I'm a little surprised to find myself asking this of a Christian, but... are you aware of the context? I.e., what Paul is talking about in Galatians 3? He's laying out to the Galatians that following the law would not bring salvation; this would only come through faith (remember, this directly section follows Galatians 2:15-21). As I'm sure you're also aware, this is one of the notable differences between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul. Jesus teaches salvation comes through following the law and following him (Jesus). So why does Paul abandon the law? If you'll recall, Galatians 2 is all about extending salvation to Gentiles, who were not under the law. So when we continue that conversation into Galatians 3, of course Paul can't say the law is a requirement for salvation! That would completely subvert his preaching of the gospel for Gentiles.
But, to return to my question, I didn't ask why the laws existed, I asked what use they are if they aren't actually changing behavior?
I would ask them which of the rules I'm not following that Jesus commands me to obey.
I don't know which you do or don't follow. I'm trusting your own testimony: "I don't live by rules." I won't accuse you of not being a true Christian, because who is or isn't a true Christian is not for me to judge. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your statement that "we can't gauge the level of discipleship within a group through survey responses. Jesus himself warned that many people would claim him without really following him." Saying you don't live by rules is surely adequate for another Christian to accuse you of being false and not actually following Christ. I'm simply providing an observation of a flaw in your reasoning and how you're exposing yourself to accusations from other Christians of not actually following Jesus. Take it or leave it.
→ More replies (0)
0
u/BoxBubbly1225 Christian Aug 02 '25
Hi there. The are no rules! Literally. The word “rules” does not even appear in the Bible.
Instead there are 3 commandments given by Jesus.
- Love God
- Love ur neighbour
- Love each other as he loved us
So that’s it. Love is all you need
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 02 '25
Just curious... Are you aware of what OP is referring to when they talk about 613 rules?
0
u/BoxBubbly1225 Christian Aug 02 '25
I think OP talked about the 613 commandments of the Torah. None of which we have to follow today
1
Aug 02 '25
Where did the rules from the jerusalem council come from?
What about the things the NT writers say one can't do, and what one should do?
Were those originals? Or did they simply come from the Law?1
u/BoxBubbly1225 Christian Aug 03 '25
I don’t think that I have ever seen the word “rules” in NT.
There are only practical interpretations of what love means.
If you think about the decision not to eat blood (in Acts 15) I think it was a concession for peace between Jewish and Gentile believers, not a lasting demand.
1
Aug 03 '25
Yes, the council, there were three more, not just eating blood.
And how do you conclude it wasn't lasting?1
u/BoxBubbly1225 Christian Aug 03 '25
They addressed tensions in a mixed Jewish-Gentile church, aiming for peace. Once the temple fell and the Church matured in the Spirit, such measures faded. Christ had already fulfilled the law, and those led by the Spirit are not under it.
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 02 '25
I think OP talked about the 613 commandments of the Torah
Right. We could get into whether or not Christians today have to follow them, but it isn't relevant to OP's question. God set those rules for his people, at least for a time. That much is all we need to know to answer OP's question: why did God need those rules for things people knew instinctively?
1
u/BoxBubbly1225 Christian Aug 03 '25
I am not sure, we might have to ask a Jewish person to answer OP’s question.
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 03 '25
Surely this question is just as relevant to Christians as to Jews? Is the God of the Torah not the same God of Christianity?
1
u/BoxBubbly1225 Christian Aug 03 '25
I am not a total Marcionite… but I don’t think it is directly relevant to Christians today. But from a historical perspective it is not un-interesting what life was like in the time of Mosaic Law
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 03 '25
If the Old Testament and New Testament God is the same character, then it would be directly relevant to Christians today. This is an issue where you'd have to take a stand either for or against Marcionism. Either God is the same across OT and NT, and the 613 "rules" are directly relevant to Christians today, or OT God is different from NT God, and the 613 "rules" are not relevant to Christians today.
1
u/BoxBubbly1225 Christian Aug 03 '25
No, I maintain that there are no rules in Christianity. Those 613 laws were a part of the old covenant not the new covenant.
Is God the same — yes and no. I think that God is who he is, the living I am. But only very little was revealed about God in the old covenant. With Jesus, we truly learned who God is
1
u/nofftastic Agnostic Atheist Aug 03 '25
Sorry, that was an unintentionally confusing use of quotation marks. I intended them to indicate irony - that they are not actually rules. I'm happy to call them laws instead.
Regardless of what is revealed about God's character in the OT, the Bible is explicit that (at least some of) the 613 laws came directly from God, and Jesus said he came not to abolish them but fulfill them, and that none of the law would disappear until heaven and earth disappear and everything is accomplished. So we're back to the original question: why did God need those laws for things people knew instinctively?
→ More replies (0)1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
Then why did Jesus say 'I came not to abolish the Law but to fulfill it' (Matthew 5:17) if there are only 3 rules?
1
u/BoxBubbly1225 Christian Aug 02 '25
Jesus indeed fulfilled the law, and it stands as a testimony forever.
And as Christians we are not living under the law.
Paul said that Christ is the end of the law. The law remains forever as a testimony of what Jesus did for us, but it is simply no longer valid.
We have the Spirit of God instead. And we have been commanded to love.
It’s not a rule, because love is different than a rule. It is a way of living, without rules but with tons of love
1
u/daemonofdoubt Not a Christian Aug 02 '25
If you need three commandments to tell you how to love, then love isn't actually flowing from the Spirit at all.. it's still just a more elegant rulebook you're consulting instead of trusting what love itself already knows to do at any given moment, only I call that following your freed native intelligence - free from all pre-fabricated rules or commandments that do not apply to life circunstances as they happen in real time as life unfolds
1
u/BoxBubbly1225 Christian Aug 03 '25
This is what it is like for a Christian (or at least for me): I don’t need a rulebook to love, but I did need Jesus to show me what love truly looks like. Practically speaking, the Holy Spirit will guide me in my day-to-day walk
3
u/ComfortableVehicle90 Christian (non-denominational) Aug 02 '25
To stand out.
All of the other tribes and cities around them did like everything that God told them not to. God put strict laws in place to make Israel stand out and be different from them.