Muslims believe in sharia law.

[JimC]

You asked the same question only three weeks ago in this post. I replied to it "The law of the prophets, or as you put it, all the rules established by the Old Testament."

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

8:1-11 Christ neither found fault with the law, nor excused the prisoner's guilt; nor did he countenance the pretended zeal of the Pharisees. Those are self-condemned who judge others, and yet do the same thing. All who are any way called to blame the faults of others, are especially concerned to look to themselves, and keep themselves pure. In this matter Christ attended to the great work about which he came into the world, that was, to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the accused to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors also, by showing them their sins; they thought to insnare him, he sought to convince and convert them. He declined to meddle with the magistrate's office. Many crimes merit far more severe punishment than they meet with; but we should not leave our own work, to take that upon ourselves to which we are not called. When Christ sent her away, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal, should help to save the soul with the same caution. Those are truly happy, whom Christ does not condemn. Christ's favour to us in the forgiveness of past sins should prevail with us, Go then, and sin no more.

That's what you get for quote mining and not considering the passages in their proper context.

That says nothing whatsoever as to whether he rejected or accepted the body of Judaic scripture extant at the time, it is simply one person's commentary on what he was supposed to have said or felt about certain issues.

[Hermit]

You asked the same question only three weeks ago in this post. I replied to it "The law of the prophets, or as you put it, all the rules established by the Old Testament."

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

8:1-11 Christ neither found fault with the law, nor excused the prisoner's guilt; nor did he countenance the pretended zeal of the Pharisees. Those are self-condemned who judge others, and yet do the same thing. All who are any way called to blame the faults of others, are especially concerned to look to themselves, and keep themselves pure. In this matter Christ attended to the great work about which he came into the world, that was, to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the accused to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors also, by showing them their sins; they thought to insnare him, he sought to convince and convert them. He declined to meddle with the magistrate's office. Many crimes merit far more severe punishment than they meet with; but we should not leave our own work, to take that upon ourselves to which we are not called. When Christ sent her away, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal, should help to save the soul with the same caution. Those are truly happy, whom Christ does not condemn. Christ's favour to us in the forgiveness of past sins should prevail with us, Go then, and sin no more.

That's what you get for quote mining and not considering the passages in their proper context.

Yes, the Bible is full of contradictions. So what? I've been aware of that for a long time. Be it as it may, the context of Matthew 5:17-19 is self-contained and crystal clear: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets ... until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law ... anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"

[Seth]

You asked the same question only three weeks ago in this post. I replied to it "The law of the prophets, or as you put it, all the rules established by the Old Testament."

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

8:1-11 Christ neither found fault with the law, nor excused the prisoner's guilt; nor did he countenance the pretended zeal of the Pharisees. Those are self-condemned who judge others, and yet do the same thing. All who are any way called to blame the faults of others, are especially concerned to look to themselves, and keep themselves pure. In this matter Christ attended to the great work about which he came into the world, that was, to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the accused to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors also, by showing them their sins; they thought to insnare him, he sought to convince and convert them. He declined to meddle with the magistrate's office. Many crimes merit far more severe punishment than they meet with; but we should not leave our own work, to take that upon ourselves to which we are not called. When Christ sent her away, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal, should help to save the soul with the same caution. Those are truly happy, whom Christ does not condemn. Christ's favour to us in the forgiveness of past sins should prevail with us, Go then, and sin no more.

That's what you get for quote mining and not considering the passages in their proper context.

Yes, the Bible is full of contradictions. So what? I've been aware of that for a long time. Be it as it may, the context of Matthew 5:17-19 is self-contained and crystal clear: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets ... until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law ... anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"

Biblical scholars evidently disagree about how "crystal clear" those passages are, as you can see. You choose to interpret them in your preferred way because you think it supports some claim that Jesus was ratifying and approving of Judaic law and that this impeaches his credibility somehow. But it's just quote mining. You have to look at the totality of the New Testament in order to understand what Jesus (allegedly) came to earth to do. And stoning women to death is not one of the things he is known to advocate, among other various lame attempts to demean, diminish and slander the cultural figure as part of an Atheist dogmatic religious belief.

[Svartalf]

and yet he kept going on about how the pharisees were wrong...

[Hermit]

You have to look at the totality of the New Testament

Been there. Done that. I read the New Testament. Twice. The first time as a catholic. That caused me to become a deist. The second time as a deist. That opened my eyes to the many contradictions contained in the books. No quote mining required to work that out. And yes, the meaning of Matthew 5:17-19 is crystal clear despite the fact that some biblical scholars disagree with my take on it. The fact that they disagree makes them no more right than when the vast majority of biblical scholars dogmatically maintained that the earth is the centre of the universe because the Bible says so.

[piscator]

and yet he kept going on about how the pharisees were wrong...

Impervious membranes are impervious. Not fun, just impervious.

[Seth]

You have to look at the totality of the New Testament

Been there. Done that. I read the New Testament. Twice. The first time as a catholic. That caused me to become a deist. The second time as a deist. That opened my eyes to the many contradictions contained in the books. No quote mining required to work that out. And yes, the meaning of Matthew 5:17-19 is crystal clear despite the fact that some biblical scholars disagree with my take on it. The fact that they disagree makes them no more right than when the vast majority of biblical scholars dogmatically maintained that the earth is the centre of the universe because the Bible says so.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I would note that Christians today don't stone women to death, so you're using the Wayback Machine fallacy (and one single passage in the New Testament) to try to try to justify gross bigotry and hatred towards people who haven't done the things you accuse them of.

[JimC]

I agree that the practice of most christians today does not follow the horrendous exhortations of the Old Testament, and that main-stream christianity has put aside the worst bits of that part of the bible in practice. However:
1. Go back a few hundred years, and this was not universally the case.
2. The changes to a meeker christianity were not purely because of reform from within, but the culmination of a long historical process of secularisation, which removed much of the worldly power of the church (a change which modern islam is rejecting)
3. The christian bible still contains the Old Testament, when, if they were serious in rejecting it, it could have easily been excised.
4. Christian preachers of all denominations still quote the Old Testament in their sermons, with the fierier ones delighting in the violent and vengeful passages.

So, it still casts a shadow over christianity, a shadow where the god of the old testament does a pretty good job of being Sauron...

[Seth]

I agree that the practice of most christians today does not follow the horrendous exhortations of the Old Testament, and that main-stream christianity has put aside the worst bits of that part of the bible in practice. However:
1. Go back a few hundred years, and this was not universally the case.
2. The changes to a meeker christianity were not purely because of reform from within, but the culmination of a long historical process of secularisation, which removed much of the worldly power of the church (a change which modern islam is rejecting)
3. The christian bible still contains the Old Testament, when, if they were serious in rejecting it, it could have easily been excised.
4. Christian preachers of all denominations still quote the Old Testament in their sermons, with the fierier ones delighting in the violent and vengeful passages.

So, it still casts a shadow over christianity, a shadow where the god of the old testament does a pretty good job of being Sauron...

Let us suppose, arguendo, that this is the case, and that the God of the Old Testament is a right bastard. What does that have to do with the question of whether or not God exists?

Nothing.

And if it is true that God exists, and is indeed the vengeful and jealous god of the Old Testament, Pascal would seem to have come to the correct conclusion.

You're banking on the notion that the Bible, as a whole, is a work of pure fiction and that there is no God and therefore no end times, no judgment, no heaven, no hell and no eternal punishment. And you're entitled to believe that. It is, however, a religious belief you cling to that is solidly based in pure, unadulterated and unsubstantiated faith that's every bit as religious in nature as Christian belief is, and therefore by your own lights, is entirely irrational. Being an irrational belief, it is of no greater moral or intellectual weight than any other irrational belief, such as the belief of Christians that salvation is possible and one can be forgiven one's sins and can avoid eternal damnation.

The point being that your (and by "you" I mean all Atheists) self-assumed position of intellectual and moral superiority as an Atheist and religious believer is built on the same foundation of sand that you claim theism is built, which makes your arguments just as self-serving and irrational as anyone elses.

And what if you're wrong and God does exist and is as you have suggested?

You're in serious trouble. Just sayin'.

[piscator]

I agree that the practice of most christians today does not follow the horrendous exhortations of the Old Testament, and that main-stream christianity has put aside the worst bits of that part of the bible in practice. However:

2. The changes to a meeker christianity were not purely because of reform from within, but the culmination of a long historical process of secularisation, which removed much of the worldly power of the church (a change which modern islam is rejecting)

What were the mechanisms of, "a long historical process of secularisation"? Was it a "Top Down" affair?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

It is, however, a religious belief you cling to that is solidly based in pure, unadulterated and unsubstantiated faith that's every bit as religious in nature as Christian belief is, and therefore by your own lights, is entirely irrational.

Yet again, this crap about atheism being a "belief". It is simply a lack of belief in an unsupported assertion about the existence of a supernatural being.

[piscator]

Seth wrote:

It is, however, a religious belief you cling to that is solidly based in pure, unadulterated and unsubstantiated faith that's every bit as religious in nature as Christian belief is, and therefore by your own lights, is entirely irrational.

Yet again, this crap about atheism being a "belief". It is simply a lack of belief in an unsupported assertion about the existence of a supernatural being.

You still believe in Seth?

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

It is, however, a religious belief you cling to that is solidly based in pure, unadulterated and unsubstantiated faith that's every bit as religious in nature as Christian belief is, and therefore by your own lights, is entirely irrational.

Yet again, this crap about atheism being a "belief". It is simply a lack of belief in an unsupported assertion about the existence of a supernatural being.

You still believe in Seth?

I'm agnostic about his existence; I certainly won't assert that he doesn't exist.

[piscator]

I found I didn't need it. There's plenty of shit to scoff at already, why add more?

[JimC]

I agree that the practice of most christians today does not follow the horrendous exhortations of the Old Testament, and that main-stream christianity has put aside the worst bits of that part of the bible in practice. However:

2. The changes to a meeker christianity were not purely because of reform from within, but the culmination of a long historical process of secularisation, which removed much of the worldly power of the church (a change which modern islam is rejecting)

What were the mechanisms of, "a long historical process of secularisation"? Was it a "Top Down" affair?

From what I've read, part of the early reduction in church power was simply driven by various secular rulers (kings, princes etc.) resisting the authority of Rome for their own selfish reasons. After the reformation, with christianity divided in warring camps, such resistance became even easier...

Later came the enlightenment, and a more deliberate rejection of religious dominance by an increasing number of serious thinkers, who started to realise that both human life and the nature of the universe was explicable without resort to the supernatural...