No silly. "The LAW" here being, Moses' law, you know, the ten? But then, yeah, if you're an atheist, you don't believe in divinity. . . so you can pretty much make anything your god, right? Money, toys, sex, drugs, rock n roll, arguing on the internet?
But these laws are precisely the justification for the atrocities committed in the Old Testament, and Jesus endorses these atrocities by commanding that the old laws be upheld. There are plenty of other instances in which Jesus calls for similar injustices to be done, such as in Mark 7 when Jesus criticizes people for not killing the child that curses their father and mother.
Other than that, there isn't a whole lot else that is in "The Law" that any atheist might consider . . . separating out, is there? All Jefferson argued is that, as in the day of the Christ, it is the politically powerful in any religion that add commentary to any divine inspiration. So much more is heaped upon the words of the prophets than to what the prophets actually meant. In many instances, isn't it just a matter of interpretation?
While there is plenty of reason to believe that, there is no warrant to cherry-pick teachings from him that agree with our own morals. This is done based on our own understanding of morality, not the teachings of Jesus. Since Jesus actually teaches some horrendous things in the Bible, neglecting those in favor of those more gentle and kind is a distinction made entirely separate from whatever "framework" the scripture supposedly sets up for us, and thereby demonstrates the fallacy of the claim that we get our moral foundation from scripture.
Also, I'd say there is plenty in the law that any humanist would want to stay away from. The initial throat-clearing of the first four commandments, for example, are unintelligible in a secular sense. That honoring your mother and father is so vague, failing to take into account physical, mental, or sexual abuse, and punishable by death, is reason to seek better wisdom elsewhere. The ninth commandment's wording that one should not bear false witness "against" thy neighbor implies that bearing false witness
for your neighbor might be permissible, and either way it's vagueness is irresponsible given the severity of punishment.
And, of course, the tenth commandment includes the wife with the chattel, which is about as damning a mark as a text can have when trying to claim divine authorship.
So, yes, there is plenty about the laws that one would want to distance himself or herself from.
I suppose, that is why Moses and Jesus are looked at as the most divine of them all. But to be absolutely fair, I haven't read them in their native language, and again, much gets unfairly interpreted with political bias, doesn't it? Likewise, I could never hope to render a judgement on the works of Mohamed, I'm sure most English translations are bias to one extreme or the other. But these prophets aren't venerated for nothing. JDawg your ego's desperate grasp to your world view I think prevents you from learning pearls of wisdom where they are free to you. Love and compassion are much more amiable companions than isolation and apathy.
It's interesting that the only commentary not allowed by those who have not read the texts in their original languages (an arbitrary and unnecessary requirement itself) is of a critical nature. We are apparently quite free to assume that the political influence on the texts is wholly negative, however, and that the bad stuff we read within is entirely due to this political influence, and not the intent of the authors.
THIS is precisely the bullshit Jefferson was railing against.
What a load of horseshit.
When asked directly if Jesus was god, did he EVER say he was? When asked if he was the son of god, did he ever confirm that he was? Nope, he just said we were all sons and daughters of the most high. Get off it.
Jesus most certainly
did claim to be the son of god, in both words and actions. By calling himself the "Son of Man," he referenced Daniel 7:
I saw in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. And dominion and glory was given Him, and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages, should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion which shall not pass away, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
He also answered in the affirmative when the charge was put to him directly:
And coming into the parts of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say Me to be, the Son of Man? And they said, Some say, John the Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He said to them, But who do you say I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answered and said to him, You are blessed, Simon, son of Jonah, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but My Father in Heaven.
In John 8:5, he references the Old Testament's God's name for itself, "I AM" when asked if he is greater even than Abraham:
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.”
These were not cryptic statements by any means, but accepted by those being spoken to to be affirmation of his status as the Christ.
But don't let your ignorance of scripture get in the way of your opinion...
Anyway, Lewis' argument is not reducible to whether or not Jesus actually said he was God (he never actually said he was just a man, nor just a prophet, either), but based on Jesus's teachings, which when taken as they are intended to be taken, cannot be read as great moral teachings, but only as the words of God or a madman. (Lewis added "Devil of Hell," but he was a devout Christian, so this non-sequitur can be excused. )
