Did Jesus render the Old Testament obsolete?

[Cetacea]

I ask because the Fundy's just love quoting all of the death and destruction and acts of punishment from a very seemingly mean god.
Jesus comes along and tells everyone to basically be a Liberal and love and forgive everyone and not be judgemental.
No wonder they shot him. Oh, wait, that was Lennon, JFK,RFK,MLK, ad nauseum

[Hosnon]

1. Ugh...good luck with that knot.

I'll stick with:

Perhaps, depending on the passage/principle.

[DoYouEverWonder]

2. Yes

Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT, so that his followers no longer had to follow the old rules because they no longer applied.

Whenever a fundie quotes the OT, I look at them funny and say, 'I didn't know you were Jewish?'

[WindRavenX]

4. yup

Jesus was the new Moses.

[TahitiNut]

6. Yep. That's why it's "Good News" and the Old Testament is called "Old."

Amusing. Never let it be alleged that failed used car salesmen thumping on a pulpit have the slightest theological comprehension.

[Warpy]

7. Wrongo

because Jesus told his followers to obey all the laws in the OT, it was their way to heaven, along with hating their parents and giving away everything to the poor.

Paul is the one who came along with the attractive fiction that good Romans and Greeks didn't need to follow the more onerous Jewish laws.

[TahitiNut]

9. Hebrews 8:13.

God's Covenant with the Jewish people as a whole has been superceded by a "New Covenant" and replaced by a "New Testament."

In the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the "new Covenant" supercedes the old. Indeed, concordances are present in Christian Bibles for that very reason.

To reject Hebrews 8:13 is to reject Christianity.

:shrug:

[Warpy]

26. Matthew 5:17-20

You gonna listen to Jesus or to the author of Hebrews?

You really want to place a mere man above god?

[okasha]

53. Riiiiiight.

That's why he deliberately broke so many of the OT laws himself and called the guys who rigidly adhered to them hypocrites.

Try again.

[Igel]

58. Which? n/t

[davekriss]

16. I share your understanding

And I do the same re: the o so selective quoting of the OT.

[Igel]

57. So, did Jesus speak on incest?

Cannibalism?

If he didn't rule it out, then there's no reason not to go for it.

I side with the author of John.

[Mountainman]

3. Jesus says that he brings a new law. Love God and love your neighbor.

Read the parable of the Good Samaritan

[tinfoilinfor2005]

20. Love your neighbor AS YOU love yourself.

Forgive their trespasses AS YOU forgive those who trespass against you. Many theologians who interpret the new testament stress that the language used was very literal. That Christ literally meant that how you judge your neighbor will be the criteria that is used "in Heaven" as to how you will be judged. i.e., be careful in your criticism because you set up the rules as to how you will be criticized for your actions.

My interpretation was that in the old testament, God made all of the calls. In the new testament, man was given more responsibility for his actions.

[salvorhardin]

5. I think you might find

I think you might find about 16 million people worldwide, about 5.7 million in the U.S. who might vigorously disagree with you.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[John Gauger]

10. That's what my brother says.

(hey, btw)

I was once reading a theological discussion that my brother posted on. He was explaining to a Muslim guy about the contradictions between the Old and the New Testaments. He's big on theology - he reads a lot of books by John Shelby Spong. I'm not really so big on it myself, but I remember him saying that. Anything Jesus said nullifies the Old Testament. Or that's what he says. I suppose he's trustworthy on the subject. We're not Christian, but he reads stuff by Sagan, Russell, Aquinas, and St. Augustine, so he knows all the arguments for and against. Oh, and you forgot Gandhi. He was killed for his tolerance of Muslim Indians.

[Cetacea]

13. There have been so many...

...famous and unknowns killed. Thanks for bringing up Gandhi.
Your brother reads some very heady writers!

[John Gauger]

17. Yeah, he's quite something.

When he something to say about a serious issue, he's always worth listening to. Makes me kind of jealous. He has quite a bit of influence over my thinking.

On Gandhi: he's always worth bringing up. There is always something we can learn from him.

[Cetacea]

21. Yes..

By the way, that's a great Waters quote you've got there in your sig.

[John Gauger]

31. Thanks. I think so too.

My last one was from "V for Vendetta," but I felt it was getting old. I was on a _The Wall_ binge a while back and that line resonated more with me each time I heard it. DUers have been so despondent lately with their "October Surprises" and their "It's all over now!" stuff. It began with the passage of the Military Commissions Act. I thought people were being a little premature - human rights have been a struggle for all of human history. Habeas corpus may be temporarily out, but not permamently. People kept on saying it was all over - don't you think people have been saying that for thousands of years? Before the Magna Carta, someone somewhere must have thought that all was lost; look how much progress we have made since then. There are setbacks, but we have not lost.

I believe there is always hope, so I decided to wear that on my sleeve.

[LeighAnn]

11. Jesus came not to abolish the Law

Matthew 5:17-18 (New International Version)

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

To a Fundie, this means, "Just obey whatever laws you want to, ignore the laws you don't want to obey, and condemn others however you can."

Try...just once try to take a pork chop out of the hand of a Fundie who's in the middle of a dinnertime rant about gays... you'll see what I mean.

[Cetacea]

15. yes, regarding Fundies.

Great site, too!

[LeighAnn]

24. Hi Artiechoke!

:hi:
A belated welcome to DU!

[Cetacea]

28. Hi LeighAnn !

Thank you kindly. :)

[StellaBlue]

12. No, not if you're Jewish.

And furthermore, I think they are both obsolete. So there.

:P

[elocs]

14. Jesus did come to fulfill the Law.

Even the Big Ten are problematic for the fundies because one of them, "Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy" conflicts with what Jesus indicated when he said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Bible buffet style fundies are particularly hypocritical inasmuch as they claim they are not under the Law, but have no problem dipping back into the Old Testament to select scriptures that they want to use to justify their pet prejudices.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cetacea]

22. Einstein would disagree with you.

You might check out an obscure essay he wrote entitled "Cosmic Religion".
But I wasn't really looking to get into THAT particular discussion.
I was interested in how the Wrong Wing muddy the waters regarding Christianity.
At any rate, never did understand why many people believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive.

on edit: grammar

[beam me up scottie]

23. No, actually, he wouldn't.

Believers love to quote him out of context even though posthumously baptizing a person is unethical.

[Cetacea]

27. You must use (to quote our Dear Leader) "The Google"

"I maintain that cosmic religiousness is the strongest and most noble driving force of scientific
research."

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all
art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of
wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose
gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is
the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself
among profoundly religious men."

[PassingFair]

30. In this sense, and in this sense alone

Get it?

I don't think you do....

But at least you have quoted him IN context here.

[Cetacea]

32. Yes, the "Cosmic Relgious Sense"

Einstein's words. What he was describing in that essay is now more commonly referred to as "Cosmic Consciousness". He goes on to say that very few people actually experience it, and when they do, are often branded as heretics. (He uses St. Frances as one example)
He also said that Religion is basically a failure if it cannot transmit the experience to other people. His belief and hope were that science and art could perform this function. Get it?

[beam me up scottie]

36. Spinoza's God.

These are the kind of people who spread lies about Einstein's "beliefs":

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/050128


No agenda there, eh?

You're joining their crusade when you do the same.

Get it?

[John Gauger]

33. But to a believer,

wonderment at the universe means reverence of God's greatness. He did not say he believes in God, but if you know that he did (which he did) it is implied in his statement.

Einstein is used in many apocryphal stories (called 'glurges' by those who study folklore) in support of God against those nasty atheists. Here is a true story about him: as a young boy, Einstein encountered a physics textbook. He was amazed by this work. He had so many questions that nobody would ever answer for him, that nobody could answer. But here the workings of the universe were laid bare. But something was not right. If these writings were true, which to him they most obviously were, then the Bible which he had studied all his short years could not be true. He loudly protested that the whole Book was ridiculous fabrication. This, of course, caused his community a great deal of consternation (I may be mistaken, but I believe he grew up in a Jewish community. Either way, both Jewish and Christian societies in Germany at that time were strictly religious.) Now, this sounds to me like an unequivical refutation of God, but apparently not to Einstein. Einstein routinely spoke of God as the source of all nature's laws, most famously to Niels Bohr concerning the new theory of quantum physics: "God does not play with dice!"

[beam me up scottie]

35. Yeah, and believers don't require evidence for their beliefs.

Wanting to believe something is true is all that's needed.

Einstein was an atheist.











edited to remove unnecessary snarkiness

[John Gauger]

37. After looking at your Einstein quotes,

it seems I am back on the side of those who say he is an atheist. After reading Broca's Brain, I of course thought he was an atheist. That's what Dr. Sagan said. But then I read, again and again and again, by more experts than I can count, that he did believe in God. At first I didn't want to believe it. But then I realized that even the great Dr. Sagan is wrong sometimes. I felt like a fool for blindly believing anything Sagan said; the evidence was universally in opposition to him.

Now I feel like an idiot for being swayed away from him. I actually thought, "EVERYBODY says it, so it must be true." I actually allowed myself to be convinced that the conventional wisdom was true. Of course, when all of the world's experts loudly proclaim the truth is plain to see, it is usually best to assume the opposite of what they claim and work from there. They said it was well established, so I assumed it was.

I always maintained that simply mentioning God does not make one a believer, but after a long time I was convinced it was meant in the quite literal sense.

I am amazed to learn that I am still capable of being duped by sound and fury. Of course, I never heard or saw any of these instances where Einstein mentioned God. A lie repeated a thousand times can indeed become the truth.

And I talked about it like I knew! As if I had some kind of evidence. It was just a few minutes ago, but I can't believe I actually did it.

[beam me up scottie]

40. Oh no!

Please don't take it like that. I'm sorry for coming down so hard on you. My friend IMModerate usually explains it much more tactfully than I do.

Einstein lived in a time when anti-religious comments could get you killed, he had many good reasons for citing Spinoza's god. And his beliefs did change over the course of his life, just like ours do.

I have quite a collection of freethinker sites and that's where I got my quotes from, I am pretty quick on the draw because I've had to debate this issue many times.

The other side expertly uses selective bias, but then again, that's a big part of their business.


And if I were to worship anyone, it would be Carl Sagan. :)

[Goblinmonger]

52. Hey!! You are going to hell

for not worshipping Sam Harris.

[Random_Australian]

50. Given that this was all about how correct Einstein was, and thus his

opinion carries weight, I thought I might mention that the reason that quote is so famous is because he was completely in the wrong. (Sort of)

[John Gauger]

54. Yeah, I thought about mentioning that.

That's pretty much the way I was going to put it: completely wrong (sort of.) He was comletely wrong in balking at the randonmess of the universe, but he was sort of right in that he rejected quantum physics. Quantum physics isn't exactly right, so he is only sort of completely wrong. But I didn't think it was relevant.

I don't really buy into the whole 'argument from authority thing.' I don't feel that one man's religious views should sway us in ours. His arguments of course are relevent to a theological discussion, but simply using his name for its weight is not appropriate. I don't think however that that's what Artiechoke was doing. I was taking part in the argument because I just like all the facts to be known. If you look at my later posts, you will see how ridiculous my participation was; I don't have the facts myself. I kind of embarrassed myself there. Artiechoke and Beam me up Scottie both know a lot more than I do about the subject.

But again, we should base our beliefs on the validity of the arguments, not just blind agreement with authority. Holding a religious view simply because that's what Einstein held (which we aren't even sure of here.) Lets remember that everyone is wrong from time to time. Einstein became a stubborn, unscientific old codger in his old age. I would even go so far to say that he displayed a provincial superstitionism in denial of new atomic discoveries such as the strong nuclear force. Which is not to say that he stopped being a great man. He still fought the House Un-American Activites Committee and wrote a very persuasive tract on Socialism in his old age.

[Random_Australian]

63. Careful where you step with wrong/right.

QP isn't monolithic y'know!

And the other thing - it IS about a non-contradiction clause away from bieng right. :)

[beam me up scottie]

34. Thanks for proving my point.

Google is like stats, you can find anything you want to support your bias.

Einstein was diplomatic and very reluctant to discuss his non-belief in public.

In his personal correspondence, he had no such reservations.

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist

I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

I have no possibility to bring the money you sent me to the appropriate receiver. I return it therefore in recognition of your good heart and intention. Your letter shows me also that wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.

I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science.

The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.

I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion.

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

Please don't posthumously baptize the man, it's not just disrespectful, IMO, it's unethical.

[John Gauger]

38. You know, the Mormons have a religious

ceremony where they _literally_ baptise the dead. They have actually done it to Einstein. They did to Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels and other Nazis, as well as Stalin. To "save their souls." (read: there is no such thing as bad publicity.)

My mother lived with the Mormons for a month of the summer in Salt Lake City when she was a teenager. Everything you have ever heard about freaky cults is reportedly true about them. She will never go back there. She doesn't speak with her Mormon friend anymore because of it; she doesn't want to deal with someone who actually chose to live that way.

[beam me up scottie]

41. I've read about that.

There is nothing more morally repugnant than that practice. :mad:

You should stick around, many posters in here are ex-mormons and have many horrific stories to tell.

[Realityhack]

66. To be entirely fair.

The mormons state that they are performing a baptism that the dead can eiter accept or not accept not a mandatory one.

(In their minds - this is all crap as far as I am concerned)

They beleive you can only have a wonderful heavenly afterlife if you are baptized.
Many people where not.
They perfrom baptisms for the dead allowing those people access to heaven but not forcing it upon them.

Seems to me that this is actualy a fairly ethical practice given the horribly flawed assumption that heaven exists etc.

[Cetacea]

39. Want to buy a book?

300.00
Used - Very Good

Seller: safe_harbor_books
Rating:99% positive over the past 12 months (262 ratings.) 1719 lifetime ratings.
Shipping: In Stock. Ships from CA, United States Expedited shipping available. International shipping available. See shipping rates.
Comments: Publisher: Covici- Friede
Date of Publication: 1931
Binding: 0Hardcover
Condition: Very Good
Description: One chip in front of jacket and one at spine, a few short closed tears. Overall a very nice copy. Hardcover, very good in good to very good dustjacket. Previous owner's name on front end paper.

I get my quotes directly from Einstein.
Your assumtion that I am unethical is highly...unethical. And rude.

[beam me up scottie]

42. I got my quotes from Einstein, too, but without the spin.

And sorry, but IMO, anyone who misrepresents the views of dead people to support their own beliefs IS behaving unethically.

[Cetacea]

43. You're welcome for missing Einstein's point...

You're not sorry, you're baiting me. I have in my hand a book from 1931 (very limited edition) that Einstein wrote himself entitled: "Cosmic Religion". This book has been my source for this argument.

Again, Scotty:

"...To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."

So he didn't believe in a big guy in the sky on a cloud with a long white beard named God or that organized religion was or ever will be viable, as he wrote by his own hand:

"The religious geniuses of all times have been distinguished by this cosmic religious sense, which recognizes that neither dogmas nor God made in man's image. Consequently there cannot be a church whose chief doctrines are based on the cosmic religious experience."

The following may explain why there is so much confusion pertaining to his beliefs and the on-going argument of whether or not he was an atheist:

"It comes about, therefore, that precisely among the heretics of all ages we find men who were inspired by this highest religious experience; often they appeared to their contemporaries as atheists*, but sometimes also saints. Viewed from this angle, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are near to one another."

In the above quote, he is nearly QUOTING the classic study of this phenomenon, which you obviously know little to nothing about, "Cosmic Consciousness"; an exhaustive study into this phenomenon first published in 1901 by Canadian psychologist William Bucke.

Einstein was trying to describe cosmic consciousness to the everyday simpleton who only knows "believers" or "atheists". He was trying to describe something that is impossible to translate in any form of communication and he hoped that art and science rather than "the church" would be able to instill this rare experience to one another.

All of the above quotes are from my copy of "Cosmic Religion" by Albert Einstein, hardcover, 1931, first edition that... is... in... my... hand. So you just keep on using "the Google" to FIND your own spun rebuttals, as you mentioned in a previous post.

It is unethical to accuse someone of being unethical when the accused has more knowledge on the matter at hand than the accuser. Good night, and good luck.

*Hmmmmm never mind, you'll think it unethical.

[beam me up scottie]

44. Wow, a book from 1931, how authoritative.

Good thing all of the quotes I used were made by Einstein AFTER 1931.

From 1954:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

How desperate do you have to be when, in order to force Einstein to support your pet beliefs, you ignore everything the man said after 1931 and instead cling to the ONE book that "proves" your claim?

They might have to create an addition to the Woo Woo Credo for this since it's not really covered by #29.

You did manage to work in #22 quite admirably though:

Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements.

Keep spreading the disinfo, the Fred Hutchisons of the world are counting on you.

:patriot:

[Cetacea]

45. Yes, an un-edited/unabridged book by Einstein

I see nothing in that quote that signifies Einstein's having changed his mind regarding "The Cosmic Religious Sense" that he wrote about in my little
book. What is apparent is that you know little to nothing about it and thus cannot possibly comprehend what Einstein was talking about.

You are so blinded by your intent to paint me as one who would put words into a dead man's mouth that you have completely failed to realize that, in your reply, you captured the essence of my post.
You lose. Buh-bye!!
:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

46. That's it, cling to your book and ignore all of his later words and letters.

I "cannot possibly comprehend", eh?

Intellectually dishonest, ignorant and uninformed would be how I would describe someone who ignores volumes of contradicting information and keeps citing an outdated book as if it were the bible. Rereading your posts, it seems my comprehension skills are right on.

Too bad dead men can't defend themselves against unscrupulous cherry picking believers who think "cosmic religion" is actually a religion.



" you know little to nothing about it and thus cannot possibly comprehend what Einstein was talking about"

Ah, using #22 again, are we? Try to be more original, the pantheists use that one constantly.



"you lose" ?

:rofl: How old are you?

I have found no better expression than "religious" for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason. Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.

The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image-a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being. For this reason, people of our type see in morality a purely human matter, albeit the most important in the human sphere.

[Cetacea]

47. Forget it.

You are resorting to name calling . You are not following this thread in a coherent matter. You are not reading my posts. And if you are, you have some serious Reading Comprehension issues.

[beam me up scottie]

48. Ridiculous. I read all of your posts.

They're just like any other Einstein/Sagan was a pantheist/deist/"insert name of religious sect here" post.

This little sub thread started when you claimed Einstein would disagree with the poster who said:

"Face the facts: there is no proof of god, Jesus, or anything of the sort.

If you want detailed, ironclad proof detailing there is no god, just pick up a copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He lays out every argument put forth by those to ignorant to investigate science and thus replace what they can't understand by attributing it to "god". Well, that begs the question of what evidence there is for god. Short answer: none."

Einstein obviously didn't believe there was proof of "god, Jesus, or anything of the sort".


Cherry picking quotes from a book published in 1931 does not trump decades of quotes and personal correspondence that contradict your belief.

Why do you think his kids published his letters after he died?

Why do you think he angrily denounced the rumours of his alleged religious convictions?


What I don't get is why believers have this compulsive need to claim dead atheist scientists for their own.

Is faith so fragile it can't stand alone?

[Cetacea]

49. That's my point

You are blinded by your anger and/or have a Reading Comprehensive Problem.


"They're just like any other Einstein/Sagan was a pantheist/deist/"insert name of religious sect here" post."

I don't belong to any sects. Sagan lost my respect when he flipped my bud John Lilly regarding Lilly's work with Dolphins. But that's an inside story and John and Carl Sagan are deceased, so I am not even going to attempt to go there with you.

"Why do you think his kids published his letters after he died?"
Umm. To make money?

"Why do you think he angrily denounced the rumours of his alleged religious convictions?"
Ummm. Because people like yourself (nothing personal) would not understand what the "Cosmic Sense" is? He didn't want to be seen as a heretic, nor as a Saint, like the people he admired. Because he knew that in that time period, not one single person would know what he was referring to as the "Cosmic Sense." It wasn't until the 60's that people felt comfortable talking about it.
If you'd read the the study I keep referring to, most of the scientists, writers,people from all walks of life were afraid to mention it to anyone for the same reasons. Many of these people were former atheists. Some remained Panths'. All wrote or told those close to them that the experience forever changed their lives. This was backed by the observations of those who knew them.


"What I don't get is why believers have this compulsive need to claim dead atheist scientists for their own."

The same can be said for your group.


"Is faith so fragile it can't stand alone?"

Ditto for atheists.

And Einstein wasn't referring to faith in those writings. He was referring to a unique, direct experience that is very rare. Bucke considered it as part of the next leap in human evolution. But this discussion is rather pointless until you read Buckes work. I am not trying to insult you here, even though you've accused me of essentially being an unethical Ghoul.
I think you'd find the research rather fascinating.


.

[Finder]

55. I think Einstein explained what he meant by "Cosmic" religion quite well...

and was clear he did not believe in the gods of theology. Nor did he believe in the new agey concept of cosmic consciousness that many attribute to him.

He did not believe in an afterlife or any deity interfering with the processes of nature. He described his awe of the universe akin to the awe of religious fervor minus the fear or absolute morality. He described the commitment to scientific inquiry akin to that of religious philosophers...obsession, dedication, separation from society.

He saw the universe as most atheists and some deists see it. He was careful not to insult those who he knew could not grasp the concept.(unlike Dawkins and Harris.lol)

What we know for sure is he was not a theist.

We also know he was a freethinker.

[Cetacea]

61. I don't think Frances Bacon was new agey

You bring up some good points but are missing the bigger picture here.
Here is a link for you or anyone else interested in the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bucke

I would add that the term gets used a little too loosely by new agey types.

[Realityhack]

68. I must be missing something.

What is it that makes you think Einstein subscribed to a 'cosmic consiousness' or is that not what you are claiming at all?

[Zhade]

71. "Your bud' - again, you could be just making THAT up, too.

You can't use information you allegedly have that no one else does to prove anything. It's a dishonest tactic.

You could just be making shit up at this point. We have no way to tell, and thus the safe conclusion is that you are.

[Zhade]

70. You know, you could be lying about this alleged book.

We have no way of knowing if you even HAVE it, let alone are quoting honestly from it.

Just throwing that out there. Your word isn't enough to prove your erroneous claim that Einstein was religious.

[Random_Australian]

51. Why would anyone care what Einstein thinks?

Let me put it to you like this - I happen to be enrolled in some very high-flying science stuff.

There are religious people there.

Therefore religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

Statistics beats any one person or genius or fool.

Additional: There is a very high percentage of atheists in my classes, more so near the top.

This means there is a correlation between atheism and science (just in case someone wanted to use what I am saying to say that religion is valid, scientifically, which would be completely false.)

Additional Additional: My class is used as an example because it is near the world average. :) And because I know it first-hand.

[Realityhack]

67. I don't think thats likely.

Einstein definately did NOT beleive in a biblical god. He made that clear.

Einstein's 'religion' was closer to a profound sense of wonder at the beauty and order of the universe.

I find it highly unlikely that Einstein would dissagree with the statements you claim he would. Specificaly:
"What a bunch of superstitious crap!" (refering to did jeasus erase OT laws or not)
Check I think Einstein would agree.

"Kind of like valuing an embryonic cell over a living person." (a little unclear)
but I seen no reason to beleive that Einstien would dissagree.

If you want detailed, ironclad proof detailing there is no god, just pick up a copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins...
Dawkins spends several pages explaining that he is in no way reffering to an Einstinian god. Thus I think Einstein would agree with what Dawkins says about god (specificaly operationaly defined by Dawkins as a 'personal' god) being a delusion.

[Danger Mouse]

69. Now this...

is just insulting.

[Divine Discontent]

74. very true! it's crossing the line of discussion & disagreement into hatred & mockery n/t

[RevCheesehead]

19. Nope.

He came to open the eyes of the close-minded religious bigots who were misinterpreting the commandments and the law. That's why they killed him.

[Divine Discontent]

75. DING DING DING!

winner!

[PsychoDad]

25. No.

Jesus (pbuh) stated that he came to fulfill the law not to change it.
What Jesus did try to do with his ministry was to show that the law was given by God for the benefit of man, not God itself... and that our greatest obligation was to our fellow man.


Peace.

[Cetacea]

29. Thank you, all

for the responses. I think I am less confused now.
Cheers

[trotsky]

64. Hehe...

You got answers all over the spectrum, but now you're less confused? I'm impressed! :)

[Brentos]

56. No.

He came to fulfill the Law to prove who he was and show how it had been mishandled. Many of the laws were added at a later date (which many scholars and the Bible itself attests to). This is something the Jews would do every year, and still do to this day (although no longer in the Torah itself). The question then always follows: which laws are the original or "correct" laws, and which were added. This is what Jesus was doing. Fulfilling the law as a perfect example of what it means. I'll provide a couple of examples:

In the old testament, you read about "eye for eye, tooth for tooth". This is Hammurabi's code. It was inserted at some point into the Law (probably around David or Solomon's time when the bible tells us that the law was added to). Jesus also tells us this on the Sermon on the Mount (which is the best place to learn what the Law really is). He says (and I'm not directly quoting) 'You have heard it said...eye for eye..tooth for tooth....I tell you this, when a man strikes you in one cheek, turn to him the other...etc. Jesus was telling the people that the law they have been following was wrong, he is the law.

The 10 commandments tell us to keep the sabbath holy. Eventually the Israelites and then the Jews interpreted this as if you do any work at all, you should be stoned. Jesus goes out with his people on the Sabbath and "works", showing the religious leaders what is meant by "holy". The "holy" day is a day to put aside normal duties and do God's work, not no work. If a neighbor needs help, help him. If a lamb is stuck in a pit, get him out. But do this work for God, in God's name.

For further reading of what is God versus what is man in the Bible, compare the Kingdom time periods written in Samuel, Kings, Chronicles to the same period written in the books of the prophets. Samuel, Kings, Chronicles all tell the story from the points of view of man. Samuel and Kings tells it from the Davidic pre-exilic POV, Chronicles from the post-exilic (still Davidic) POV, and the books of the prophets and Jesus tell it from God's POV.

Hope this helps,

Thanks,
-Brent

[Evoman]

59. The old testament rendered the Old Testament obsolete.

Have you read that thing...its absolute shite. Can you get any more obsolete than "stone people for picking up sticks on the weekend"?

But then, the new testament is also obsolete as well. Demons causing disease? People being resurrected?

I think god needs to come up with a 5th edition (if you consider the Qu'ran a 3rd Ed, and Mormonism a 4th).

[Brentos]

60. Jesus would agree on one point

Jesus agreed that to "stone people for picking up sticks on the weekend" was not the intent of the law.

[vssmith]

62. Out with the Old in with the New

To me it seems to me that Jesus repudiated the old Mosaic law when he discouraged the stoning of the harlot by saying, "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

[TallahasseeGrannie]

65. Yes, he did.

But the OT has some great poetry and some really racy stuff, too.

Jesus is the new covenant who cancels the old. Happily, we don't have to kill lambs down at the temple anymore.

Someday somebody will show up and cancel the New. But I'm holding onto my stock portfolio anyway.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

72. Yes he did

[TRYPHO]

73. Ask first what DID he say

and compare it with what was potentially said by others in his name. Jesus (I really do find the Greek offensive but there you go, I'll accept it) was the leader of an ULTRA orthodox sect. Most of what he would have said goes without saying. As someone else pointed out, Paul is one very obvious potential line of enquiry for words most likely said on Jesus' behalf without his acceptance. John would rank highly too. The missing 50 years between Jesus' death in Palestine, and the Gospels appearing in a foreign language by 3rd party representatives 100's of miles away makes the chinese whisper problem enormous.

Did Jesus render the Old Testament Obsolete? No. Those who wrote in his named tried to do that, and some have done quite an efficient job of it.

Did Jesus render the Old Testament obsolete? No, it was obsolete almost as soon as it was written. Once Moses died and the authority of God was handed to the Judges, every decision would have rendered the old testament more and more obsolete. That's like asking if the original constitution is still valid - no, its been superceded. Its just that most (non-Jews) don't realise the Old Testament, in terms of law, gives way to the rest of the written law of the Jews in the full Tanach.

Did Jesus render the Old Testament obsolete. To ask the question shows such a level of naivity that really I shouldnt answer rather, I should list educational facilities and books to read. The above comments are because, like pretty much everyone on DU, I can't help myself.

TYPHO