Buffet Christianity

[Zzyzx]

.
Buffet Christianity / Pick and Choose / Cherry Pick

Focus on parts of the Bible and ignore others. Claim that it is 'The word of God' also claim that parts have been superseded (God changed his mind about things?).

Paul/Saul and gospel writers disagree with many teachings of Judaism – but claim that their icon was the Jewish messiah (denied by Jews).

The NT does not list the Ten Commandments. Those come from Judaism (but are revered in Christendom). However, 600+ other rules from Judaism are cast aside as though they don't apply to Christians. Why some and not others? Did God decide which rules no longer apply – or which rules apply to which people? Or did humans decide?

Some Bible stories have come to be accepted as folklore or myth or parables (or simply ignored) – while others are fiercely defended as true accounts. Did Samson push down a large building by brute strength? Did Jonah live for three days inside a fish? Did the sea part on command? Well, maybe not literally, only figuratively.

Did Jesus come back to life? “Now wait a minute. That is a true story.”

Pick and choose.

Which stories, if any, are true and accurate accounts of events that actually happened in the real world – AND how can that be determined?

[JehovahsWitness]

...would you be morally or legally required to be a servant to the estate?

Legality depends on the existing legal system. One is free to break the terms of any agreement that has been established under a given legal system... but that would still be breaking the terms of the agreement. Whether doing so would be morally justifiable is a matter of what one believes to be moral. Do beliefs however have a place in a debate forum?

[Zzyzx]

Are people bound by a covenant made by others?

Yes they can be if the terms of the agreement cover others.

If your great grandfather entered into a covenant stipulating that all his descendants would be servants to an estate, would you be morally or legally required to be a servant to the estate?

Legality depends on the existing legal system. One is free to break the terms of any agreement that has been established under a given legal system... but that would still be breaking the terms of the agreement. Whether doing so would be morally justifiable is a matter of what one believes to be moral.

A 'covenant with god' is not legally binding in my culture (and probably not yours).

Some people may choose to be morally bound – but that is optional. I would not choose to be obligated by agreements / covenants made by my great grandfather. Would you feel obligated by agreements / covenants made by your great grandfather?

Do beliefs however have a place in a debate forum?

Beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, are the subject of debate in this Forum. This thread, for example, deals with the beliefs identified as Christianity.

[JehovahsWitness]

Beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, are the subject of debate in this Forum.

This is a subforum .... but when you say "this forum" do you mean "Christianity and Apologetics"?

[tonjun]

CONCLUDING COMMENT Your posts do not demonstrate a clear understanding of what a covenant actually is.

(i) Suggesting that the Abrahamic covenent included a promise that YHWH would enslave Abrahams descendents is utter nonsense since God initially associated his promises with blessings which have positive not negative effects on the objects. Breaking the terms of a covenant may involve "curses" but since (a) the Abrahamic covenant was unilateral and (b) it was made with Abraham (not his descendent) no terms could be broken even if a curse were involved which was not.

What am I reading here?

You're saying that the covenant God made with Abraham was not made with Abraham's descendants. Yet God did say he would make the covenant and bless Abraham's descendants for an everlasting term.

What you're saying here is complete rubbish. It's a blatant attempt to fool others with your mental gymnastics.

And then you claim that a descendant of Abraham can break the covenant even if they were born after Abraham's era. But a minute ago you say the covenant is not made with Abraham's descendant. So then why should the covenant apply to Abraham's descendants?

If I was in your position, I would engage in this hardcore buffet behavior only to protect my bottom line. That's the only reason I'd go this far to push this nonsensical propaganda agenda.

[Zzyzx]

Beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, are the subject of debate in this Forum.

This is a subforum .... but when you say "this forum" do you mean "Christianity and Apologetics"?

By asking, you seem to indicate unfamiliarity with the first sentence in Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Rules.

Welcome to DebatingChristianity.com. This forum aims to be the most civil and engaging debate forum on Christianity and religion for people of all persuasions. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6

Does that need to be simplified?

[Mithrae]

NOTE: We need to establish some fundamental points before dealing with the relationship between said covanents and Christianity. It seems reasonable to establish if we are talking about one or two covenants, what they were (ie what were the terms) when they were established and how long they were in effect BEFORE attempting to say if gentiles Christians can be spoken of as part of them. Tomillustrate : One cannot talk about who is later effected by a divorce, remarriage or adoption without establishing who was married, if there was a divorce and if sonwhen it happened...and who may have been adopted.

So you're saying that Paul and later Christians should not attempt to say that gentile Christians are descendants of Abraham and heirs to his covenant with God, unless and until that is demonstrated through the texts of Genesis.

They can do whatever they want. However if you are attempting to engage in an analysis of the relationship between the covenant(s) mentioned in Genesis and gentile Christians in this thread, it is reasonable you present the parties and terms of said covenant.

As I have done, several times. It's nice that you recognize the double standard in play here, at least; Christians can do whatever they want, and any critics should then jump through whatever exhaustive hoops they line up in response.

You've so far made nine posts addressed to me regarding Abraham but - correct me if I'm wrong - we have yet to see even a single sentence trying to explain any kind of relationship between Abraham and Christianity (at least beyond the level of some of Abraham's descendants trying to co-opt those stories for a nascent foreign/gentile religion). So it's quite difficult to understand what you're trying to accomplish here. Perhaps duplicity and obfuscation is the whole point of it all? If not, then why not just explain what you think the connection is?

I find those that do not really know their subject tend to prefer to stay away from specifics in favor of pontificating about grand conclusions, fortunately I have confidence that is NOT the case on this forum.

I myself find that those who are shown serious problems with their views sometimes adopt the approach of 'playing dumb,' pretending not to spot the issues and instead making exhaustive demands for ever more evidence or details of what has been covered. But I too have confidence that such a thing would not occur in this thread

I'm really starting to think that my earlier confidence was mistaken

And this is just one of literally dozens of covenants or rules and regulations which were supposed to be 'for all generations' or 'everlasting,' which Christians and the NT have later come along and said "Nah, jks, they weren't really." (Jews do too in fairness, though I gather that even fewer Jews treat their scripture as "100% true and accurate" than do Christians.) The only thing making this covenant of Gen. 17 a bit more interesting than all the others is that while Paul etc. downplay all the later stuff under Moses, he explicitly emphasizes the Abrahamic covenant. He just had an irrational or at least inconsistent aversion to the circumcision part of it. (Though I suspect that he would have roundly rejected this "100% true and accurate" attitude towards the written texts too; he's the guy who claimed rather emphatically that the letter "kills," and there was a new and better way of the spirit now.)

[JehovahsWitness]

An ordinary intelligent person would probably interpret this as meaning that "Abraham's covenant" and the "covenant of circumcision" are one and the same, to be found in Genesis 17.

The sources from Genesis is compiled report two covenants God made with Isaac's father

My question is now:

#1 Why did you refer to "two covenants " (and speak of "the first" covenant)?

Your level of clarity is indeed evident for all to see. Thank you for your participation., I wish you a most agreeable evening,


JW

[Mithrae]

Were you aware that Genesis 17 isn't the only chapter in that book? As I clearly stated (again, in that exact post from which you selected a line to quote):

The sources from Genesis is compiled report two covenants God made with Isaac's father: One was made with Abram and is entirely ethnocentric, concerning only the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt and their eventual conquest and ownership of Canaan (Genesis 15). The other in Genesis 17 also focuses on the land to some extent, but says that he will be the 'father of many nations' (and hence gives him the name Abraham); provides for the inclusion of people who are not biological descendants and downplays/omits some who are (instead emphasizing, as Paul puts it, the 'children of the promise'); and it is this one which is said to be an everlasting covenant.

As we can see, the whole point of your little dance is the obfuscation and attempts at misdirection. Ten posts addressed to me regarding Abraham and still not a single sentence even attempting to explain the purported relationship between Abraham and Christianity!

[tonjun]

Were you aware that Genesis 17 isn't the only chapter in that book? As I clearly stated (again, in that exact post from which you selected a line to quote):

The sources from Genesis is compiled report two covenants God made with Isaac's father: One was made with Abram and is entirely ethnocentric, concerning only the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt and their eventual conquest and ownership of Canaan (Genesis 15). The other in Genesis 17 also focuses on the land to some extent, but says that he will be the 'father of many nations' (and hence gives him the name Abraham); provides for the inclusion of people who are not biological descendants and downplays/omits some who are (instead emphasizing, as Paul puts it, the 'children of the promise'); and it is this one which is said to be an everlasting covenant.

As we can see, the whole point of your little dance is the obfuscation and attempts at misdirection. Ten posts addressed to me regarding Abraham and still not a single sentence even attempting to explain the purported relationship between Abraham and Christianity!

JW just concludes after leaving everyone hanging as to what his position is to just say 'good evening' to all.

Wow... as I suspected. It's scary how many Christians are out there doing stunts like this just to protect their tithe distributions and other types of sales related to Christian services.

Putting the blinders on and just choosing anything convenient to push Christianity forward, and demonstrating that to others when pushed to the limit.

This gives a person even more reason to reject Christianity.

A true example of leaving people hanging and then disappearing to let things blow over. Truly not amazing and easy to spot now.

[Zzyzx]

Your level of clarity is indeed evident for all to see. Thank you for your participation., I wish you a most agreeable evening,

JW just concludes after leaving everyone hanging as to what his position is to just say 'good evening' to all.

Be nice.

JW lives in Finland (if memory serves correctly) where the time is several hours later than Forum time. Also JW shows indication of being she rather than he.