• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Faith vs Works

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
23,915
Reaction score
8,041
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Old Testament gives us the history of Christianity. It shows how Israel kept "back-sliding" and worshipping other gods despite what God had done for them. The OT explains why mankind was in need of a Saviour.
It would've been easier for the Father to just scrap mankind, and start all over again. Instead, He sent His Son Jesus (to be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins).

Jesus' instructions came from the Father. Jesus wasn't teaching anything that deviates from what the Father wanted Him to do.
Jesus is the model for obedience - therefore, He wouldn't be teaching us something that goes against the Father.

Don't forget that Jesus had emphasized the first Commandment is the most important of all Commandments.


Matthew 22
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”







The Father is a loving God, even in the Old Testament. There were reasons why God had punished people in the Old Testament.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/467-old-testament-events-and-the-goodness-of-god

Actually, I thing the first is the least important commandment.
 

HowardBThiname

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
10,573
Reaction score
5,172
Location
America's Heartland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
Wow...just wow...

I have to agree. Of course, it made sense back then to create a religious commandment that kept the unruly masses in line -- fear of an angry and vengeful god, but today, we know there is no such entity and that, if there were, we're smart enough to understand that any god who demands to be loved and worshiped is an ass, and undeserving of any attention.

The commandments to be kind to others are much better. Of course, those did not originate with the Old Testament, but rather with the even older Code of Hammurabi. The OT authors simply copied those laws and added their own spiritual ones for extra control of the people.
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
26,406
Reaction score
3,383
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The commandments to be kind to others are much better.

The 10 Commandments in the Old and the New are the same.

Of course, those did not originate with the Old Testament, but rather with the even older Code of Hammurabi. The OT authors simply copied those laws and added their own spiritual ones for extra control of the people.

That's what some people think.


The Code of Hammurabi focused exclusively on criminal and civil laws and meted out harsh, and sometimes brutal, punishments. In this way, Hammurabi has more in common with Draco than with Moses. The Law of Moses provided justice, but it also dealt with spiritual laws and personal and national holiness. As a result, the Mosaic Law dealt with the cause of crime, not just its effects. The Mosaic Law elevates the value of human life, and its whole tenor is more compassionate than that of the Hammurabian Code. The spiritual dimension is what makes the Law of Moses unique.

This is what sets the Mosaic Law apart from all the other law codes of antiquity: its strong emphasis on spiritual matters. The closest the Hammurabian Code comes to effect such spirituality is its proclamation that those who stole from the gods would be put to death. Unlike the Mosaic Law, Hammurabi’s Code had no provision for forgiveness.



The theory that Moses’ Law is simply a rewording of Hammurabi’s has largely been abandoned today, due to the fact that similar law codes, even older than Hammurabi’s, have been found in various other places. These would include the Cuneiform laws, written as early as 2350 B.C.; the Code of Urukagina, 2380 B.C.; the Code of Ur-Nammu, 2050 B.C.; and others.

Most critics accede to the fact that the Babylonian laws were probably well-known to the Hebrews of Moses’ day. When God communicated His Law, He used language that the Israelites were already familiar with, and this would explain similar wording for similar laws.

There are some similarities between the Mosaic Law and the Code of Hammurabi, as would be expected from two legislative systems. However, their significant differences demonstrate the baselessness of the charge that Moses copied from the Code of Hammurabi.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-Hammurabi-code.html
 

HowardBThiname

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
10,573
Reaction score
5,172
Location
America's Heartland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
The 10 Commandments in the Old and the New are the same.



That's what some people think.



https://www.gotquestions.org/Moses-Hammurabi-code.html

That's a religious link, do you really expect an unbiased assessment there?

At any rate, even if Moses didn't lift the Commandments from the Code of Hammurabi, the Code is older, hence Moses' Commandments weren't anything new.

I think most scholars (maybe not religious ones) accept that the commandments were copied from the code -- or -- from similar codes that preceded the commandments.
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
26,406
Reaction score
3,383
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Of course not, but this forum is about expressing opinions.

No, I mean....about faith.
Wouldn't that be considered pride? After all, who are we to critique God?
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
26,406
Reaction score
3,383
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's a religious link, do you really expect an unbiased assessment there?

At any rate, even if Moses didn't lift the Commandments from the Code of Hammurabi, the Code is older, hence Moses' Commandments weren't anything new.

I think most scholars (maybe not religious ones) accept that the commandments were copied from the code -- or -- from similar codes that preceded the commandments.


It doesn't matter if it comes from a religious site. The differences are explained.

Just because the code is older, isn't reason enough to say that therefore it was copied.
China and the USA have a law against murder - you say the USA copied from China since China is older than the USA?
Or, since Mexico is a neighbor, you say we copied the laws from them - the Mayans, the Aztecs, etc..,?


Here's a list of comparison between Hammurabi and Mosaic law.

Conclusion
Because of vast dissimilarities, it seems pretty clear that the Mosaic Law was not derived from the code of Hammurabi. George A. Barton, PH.D., LL.D. and Professor of Biblical Literature and Semitic Languages concluded, "A comparison of the code of Hammurapi as a whole with the Pentateuchal laws as a whole, while it reveals certain similarities, convinces the student that the laws of the Old Testament are in no essential way dependent upon the Babylonian laws. Such resemblances as there are arose, it seems clear, from a similarity of antecedents and of general intellectual outlook; the striking differences show that there was no direct borrowing."20 The fact that the Mosaic Law repudiates the ancient laws' practices of executing the children of law breakers shows that those laws were rejected as being evil.
Are the Old Testament Laws a Copy of the Code of Hammurabi?
 
Last edited:

LesGovt

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
863
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
++ Doesn't sound like a Guy I would want to believe in. I prefer the Sermon on the Mount version.

James was talking about Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount was delivered by Jesus... same guy.
 

LesGovt

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
3,665
Reaction score
863
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Questions for Nickyjo. She doesn't have to answer the questions, but I would like to know her answers:

1. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?
2. Who is Jesus?

The answers to these questions might explain the differences in our ways of thinking.

Thanks for considering.
 

HowardBThiname

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
10,573
Reaction score
5,172
Location
America's Heartland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
It doesn't matter if it comes from a religious site. The differences are explained.

They are "explained" with a bias. An, anti-historical bias. The link you gave me spins the facts to meet a predetermined objective.

Just because the code is older, isn't reason enough to say that therefore it was copied.
China and the USA have a law against murder - you say the USA copied from China since China is older than the USA?
Or, since Mexico is a neighbor, you say we copied the laws from them - the Mayans, the Aztecs, etc..,?

Okay, it doesn't mean it was copied, necessarily, although that's highly likely, but what it does mean is that the second set (the Commandments) weren't anything new in the world. They mean that Moses did not bring anything new to the world. Except, of course, the spiritual commandments, because humanity was already living by the rest of the law. The Bible sets the story up to make followers think humanity was running around lawless before Moses received the law directly from God. We know that's not true.

Here's a list of comparison between Hammurabi and Mosaic law.

Here's a novel idea -- instead of posting link after link of biased sites that are steeped in supernaturalism, just try reading both sets of laws yourself. Come to your own decisions based on your own research instead of buying into the biased opinions of others.
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
26,406
Reaction score
3,383
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They are "explained" with a bias. An, anti-historical bias. The link you gave me spins the facts to meet a predetermined objective.



Okay, it doesn't mean it was copied, necessarily, although that's highly likely, but what it does mean is that the second set (the Commandments) weren't anything new in the world. They mean that Moses did not bring anything new to the world. Except, of course, the spiritual commandments, because humanity was already living by the rest of the law. The Bible sets the story up to make followers think humanity was running around lawless before Moses received the law directly from God. We know that's not true.



Here's a novel idea -- instead of posting link after link of biased sites that are steeped in supernaturalism, just try reading both sets of laws yourself. Come to your own decisions based on your own research instead of buying into the biased opinions of others.


You don't want to accept the explanations given as to why there are some similarities.

Even established countries today - of differing ideology from differing parts of the world - have some form of similarities with their laws.
That should tell you that some deeds are universally seen as a crime.

I even gave you an example as to why being older doesn't mean that it was copied.
Similarity, isn't necessarily an evidence that something has been plagiarized!

All you got is an assumption. Well.....an assumption is just that: an assumption.
It's one thing to tell us about your assumption - but t's quite another when you start preaching
it for a fact!

Give me an evidence to your claim that Moses copied from Hamurabbi.
 
Last edited:

HowardBThiname

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
10,573
Reaction score
5,172
Location
America's Heartland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
You don't want to accept the explanations given as to why there are some similarities.
Even countries today - of differing ideology - have some form of similarities with their laws. That should tell you that some deeds are universally seen as a crime.
I even gave you an example as to why being older doesn't mean that it was copied.

Give me an evidence to your claim that Moses copied from Hamurabbi.

My evidence is that Moses' Commandments are VERY SIMILAR as those from the Code, except for the spiritual Commandments. You have to admit that the concepts behind the Commandments were not new based on that.

That's an extremely easy concept. I'm not linking to biased sites like you did -- I'm just asking you to read both and then decide for yourself.

Even within the devout Christian community, very few actually put a lot of credence in the Old Testament anymore. Too much of it is either unacceptable or has been debunked via science for the vast majority of Christians. I'm not sure why you're arguing in defense of a literal interpretation. You can't honestly believe things like bushes burning and God magically carving commandments or big boats carrying two of every species. Those are stories for children that are easily debunked.
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
26,406
Reaction score
3,383
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Originally Posted by HowardBThiname View Post
They are "explained" with a bias. An, anti-historical bias. The link you gave me spins the facts to meet a predetermined objective.



Okay, it doesn't mean it was copied, necessarily, although that's highly likely, but what it does mean is that the second set (the Commandments) weren't anything new in the world. They mean that Moses did not bring anything new to the world. Except, of course, the spiritual commandments, because humanity was already living by the rest of the law. The Bible sets the story up to make followers think humanity was running around lawless before Moses received the law directly from God. We know that's not true.



Here's a novel idea -- instead of posting link after link of biased sites that are steeped in supernaturalism, just try reading both sets of laws yourself. Come to

Speaking of evidence - you're the one who's big on demanding CORROBORATING evidence in that locked thread, The Bible (when we discussed a hypothethical scenario regarding murder).

Ironically - that thread offered so many corroborating evidence as to the validity of the Bible.....but of course, they're falling on deaf ears.



Are you the one too whom I say, has a double standard - or am I confusing you with another atheist in
another forum? Having double standard when it comes to how the Bible is analyzed, that seems to
be common.

Well....show the evidence. And maybe, I'll demand something to corroborate that too.
 
Last edited:

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
26,406
Reaction score
3,383
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My evidence is that Moses' Commandments are VERY SIMILAR as those from the Code, except for the spiritual Commandments. You have to admit that the concepts behind the Commandments were not new based on that.
:roll:

Will you read my post again.....and try to understand it.
I already explained to you why similarity is not an evidence that Moses copied from Hamurabbi!

You're ASSUMING he did.
 

HowardBThiname

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
10,573
Reaction score
5,172
Location
America's Heartland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
:roll:

Will you read my post again.....and try to understand it.
I already explained to you why similarity is not an evidence that Moses copied from Hamurabbi!

You're ASSUMING he did.

And, you're assuming he didn't, based on the anti-historical explanation of a supernaturalist.

'Nuff said. If you are locked into that mindset, nothing anyone can say will jolt you out of it. There's no logical reason to continue this discussion because you have your mind made up and you're going to pick and choose the facts that fit your narrative and ignore the rest.

Despite the fact that most of Christianity has rejected the OT ideas, you're still hanging on to them. Even when they don't make sense.
 

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
26,406
Reaction score
3,383
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And, you're assuming he didn't,

No, it's not an assumption to say that you can't say Moses copied from Hammurabi!




based on the anti-historical explanation of a supernaturalist.
:lol:

What are you on about. You're the one who's spouting off something un-historical!
You think there's nothing older than hammurabi - and that Hammurabi isn't in any way similar to that too?


The Code of Ur Namu is an example of something older than Hammurabi - and yet it too, follow the same UNIVERSAL viewpoint! Check them out!

https://www.ancient.eu/Ur-Nammu/


Although it is known that earlier law-codes existed, such as the Code of Urukagina, this represents the earliest extant legal text. It is three centuries older than the Code of Hammurabi. The laws are arranged in casuistic form of IF (crime) THEN (punishment)—a pattern followed in nearly all later codes. For the oldest extant law-code known to history, it is considered remarkably advanced because it institutes fines of monetary compensation for bodily damage as opposed to the later lex talionis (‘eye for an eye’) principle of Babylonian law; however, murder, robbery, adultery and rape were capital offenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu


Do you know what "universal" means?

To see that there's universality in how man regard some deeds - lend support that there is
objective morality - which is an argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God! :)




'Nuff said. If you are locked into that mindset, nothing anyone can say will jolt you out of it. There's no logical reason to continue this discussion because you have your mind made up and you're going to pick and choose the facts that fit your narrative and ignore the rest.

Speak for yourself. I gave sources to support my claim. You've got nothing!





Despite the fact that most of Christianity has rejected the OT ideas, you're still hanging on to them. Even when they don't make sense.

Christianity did not reject them. Reject, is not an accurate term.

Some laws in the OT are not meant for gentiles, and some are not needed anymore because the prophecy of a Messiah (which was prophesied numerous times in the OT) has been fulfilled in Christ.
So, things like sacrificing animals.....had become UNNECESSARY! OBSOLETE!

It's not rejection - how can Christianity reject the Word of God? Big difference.
 
Last edited:

HowardBThiname

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2015
Messages
10,573
Reaction score
5,172
Location
America's Heartland
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Centrist
No, it's not an assumption to say that you can't say Moses copied from Hammurabi!

It IS an assumption to assume that he did not. At any rate, we know the commandments Moses (a fictional character) presented were not original. That right there is all we need to know to debunk them.




What are you on about. You're the one who's spouting off something un-historical!
You think there's nothing older than hammurabi - and that Hammurabi isn't in any way similar to that too?

Sure, but you're arguing against Moses presenting original ideas from God just by posting that. LOL


Do you know what "universal" means?

To see that there's universality in how man regard some deeds - lend support that there is
objective morality - which is an argument for the existence of the Abrahamic God! :)

This is too funny. You're making my argument for me. Moses gave the Hebrews nothing new.

Speak for yourself. I gave sources to support my claim. You've got nothing!

You might as well have quoted the Easter Bunny. I asked you to use your brain. You opted not to do that.

Christianity did not reject them. Reject, is not an accurate term.

Some laws in the OT are not meant for gentiles, and some are not needed anymore because the prophecy of a Messiah (which was prophesied numerous times in the OT) has been fulfilled in Christ.
So, things like sacrificing animals.....had become UNNECESSARY! OBSOLETE!

It's not rejection - how can Christianity reject the Word of God? Big difference.

Word-twisting and hair-splitting. The fact is that the vast majority of Christians today do NOT buy into the hocus-pocus of the Old Testament.

Funny about the animal-sacrifice thing. You do realize God demanded a blood sacrifice of his own son?

And you wonder why thinking people have rejected those myths.

Thanks for making me smile today. :lol:
 

OlNate

Shameless Canuck
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
20,496
Reaction score
11,763
Location
Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Thanks for making me smile today. :lol:

Hi, Howard. So, what's your opinion on the OP? Is one saved through Faith or Works? Specifically, which one is required to get into Heaven?
 

CrabCake

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
1,925
Reaction score
694
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
My point was that people suggest that God cares whether we believe. I tend to think he check our work product first. Belief is the cherry on top.

My view, which is based on an inclusivist understanding of the Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace, is that God has imbued everyone with the desire to know him and be in relationship with him. You can resist that desire, go your own way and live a selfish life, in which case your salvation is in question. Alternately, you can allow that desire to draw you closer to him and it will lead you to both salvation (right standing with God) and sanctification (becoming a better, more Christ-like, human being).

I agree with you that God doesn't care much about what you believe. In fact, if you read the gospel of Mark, you quickly realize that his own disciples never really understood who he was or what he was doing, but they obeyed and were righteous for doing so. What he cares about is your response to his call regardless of how well you understand. You may not understand it, you may completely miss who he is and you might even mistakenly call him Krishna or Earth Mother, but if you responded to his call by allowing it to transform you and draw you closer to him, you are saved. In that transformation, you will become the kind of person who wants to do good and help make the world a better place. As a result, you will produce good work, assuming you are able; but the work you are producing is a product of your transformed life. God doesn't judge your works, he judges your response to his call; he judges whether you allowed that prevenience grace to move you into saving grace or not.
 
Last edited:

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
26,406
Reaction score
3,383
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Funny about the animal-sacrifice thing. You do realize God demanded a blood sacrifice of his own son?
:shock:

You don't know?????


Why do you think I say animal-sacrifice became obsolete after the coming of the Messiah?

You're arguing about something you obviously don't understand.

Anyway....back to the OP.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
23,915
Reaction score
8,041
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Questions for Nickyjo. She doesn't have to answer the questions, but I would like to know her answers:

1. Do you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Believe it is both an inspired text and a product of its time. It's messages are to be heeded, but it's words not to be taken literally. See "Inherit the Wind."

2. Who is Jesus?

John 3:16. Again, not to be taken literally.

3. Nickyjo is a guy. Friend of mine's southern mom couldn't help herself. When I was introduced as Nicholas, she asked me my middle name, and dubbed me Nickyjo when she heard it was Joseph.

The answers to these questions might explain the differences in our ways of thinking.

Thanks for considering.

No offense taken. I am in touch with my feminine side.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
23,915
Reaction score
8,041
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
My view, which is based on an inclusivist understanding of the Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace, is that God has imbued everyone with the desire to know him and be in relationship with him. You can resist that desire, go your own way and live a selfish life, in which case your salvation is in question. Alternately, you can allow that desire to draw you closer to him and it will lead you to both salvation (right standing with God) and sanctification (becoming a better, more Christ-like, human being).

I agree with you that God doesn't care much about what you believe. In fact, if you read the gospel of Mark, you quickly realize that his own disciples never really understood who he was or what he was doing, but they obeyed and were righteous for doing so. What he cares about is your response to his call regardless of how well you understand. You may not understand it, you may completely miss who he is and you might even mistakenly call him Krishna or Earth Mother, but if you responded to his call by allowing it to transform you and draw you closer to him, you are saved. In that transformation, you will become the kind of person who wants to do good and help make the world a better place. As a result, you will produce good work, assuming you are able; but the work you are producing is a product of your transformed life. God doesn't judge your works, he judges your response to his call; he judges whether you allowed that prevenience grace to move you into saving grace or not.

Magnificent words!

But I think that one can do good without the transformation, as I believe that humans are beings that tend towards the good. Sort of like Fr. Flanagan, the founder of Boys's Town, who reportedly said, "There's no such thing as a bad boy." Of course, Charles Manson went to Boy's Town, so I assume the good father might have acknowledged exceptions to his rule.
 

Nickyjo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2016
Messages
23,915
Reaction score
8,041
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
James was talking about Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount was delivered by Jesus... same guy.

I think you missed my point. I just prefer that part of Jesus's teaching. My excuse will be that I didn't read that far.
 
Top Bottom