NationStates Jolt Archive

Then why don't most Christians keep kosher or kill people who don't honour the Sabbath and so on while following some old testament laws like no homosexuality, even though Jesus never(to my knowledge) spoke about it? I've heard some Christians say the reason they don't keep kosher and such is because the Old testament is null and void with the arrival of the New testament. So why follow things like the ten commandments and other old testament laws? anyone care to explain.

I can't explain, especially since I got the impression the only bit of the OT that's void, is the stuff about sacrificing. But I have a similar question.

If God snuffed everyone but Noah and that lot, aren't all non-Christians people who've rejected God, and if that's the case, why aren't Christians killing the lot of us?

I've asked the same and got no answer but "Jesus fulfilled the law".

Some Christians do keep the OT laws, though (perhaps not to the extreme of killing people who don't honour the sabbath, but they will restrict their diet).

I've asked the same and got no answer but "Jesus fulfilled the law".

Some Christians do keep the OT laws, though (perhaps not to the extreme of killing people who don't honour the sabbath, but they will restrict their diet).

Yeah if I'm not mistaken Seventh Day Adventists honor the sabbath.

I personally do honor the Sabbath, though I'm not one of the SDA (I consider myself somewhat non-denominational, actually). It just makes sense to me to do so (I can't imagine doing stuff aside from Church related 7 days a week, anyhow).

"messanger" -> "messenger"

Then why don't most Christians keep kosher or kill people who don't honour the Sabbath and so on while following some old testament laws like no homosexuality, even though Jesus never(to my knowledge) spoke about it? I've heard some Christians say the reason they don't keep kosher and such is because the Old testament is null and void with the arrival of the New testament. So why follow things like the ten commandments and other old testament laws? anyone care to explain.


Pay attention to the content here... some men came and told the new Christians that they had to follow the laws of Moses...The same as your question here.

Acts 15:1-12
The Jerusalem Council

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."

So the topic you raise here was raised by them, exactly. This is what they decided...

Cont.
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

And so they recognized that the Holy Spirit led Gentiles just like it led them (the followers of the law), and thus, the gentile Christians did NOT need to become "Jews" and follow the laws of Moses before they could be saved through Christ...

Additionally, more in regards to the book of the Law, the law of Moses and theology of Christianity...

Galatians 3:10-22

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-- so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

The law is now in Christ and Christ is in the Christian's heart.

As to the homosexual aspect of your question, sexual immorality is still forbidden practice for Christians, acceptable behaviors are described in the NT books even though the old law has been lifted, a Christians 'freedom' does not include the freedom for acting out in sexual immorality.

Then why don't most Christians keep kosher or kill people who don't honour the Sabbath and so on while following some old testament laws like no homosexuality, even though Jesus never(to my knowledge) spoke about it? I've heard some Christians say the reason they don't keep kosher and such is because the Old testament is null and void with the arrival of the New testament. So why follow things like the ten commandments and other old testament laws? anyone care to explain.

I didn't read this, but the large text size of your signature instantly converted me to Islam.

"messanger" -> "messenger"
I was trying to make sense of this, until I realized it's referring to his new billboard of a sig. :p

[QUOTE=Similization;12432984]I can't explain, especially since I got the impression the only bit of the OT that's void, is the stuff about sacrificing. But I have a similar question.

If God snuffed everyone but Noah and that lot, aren't all non-Christians people who've rejected God, and if that's the case, why aren't Christians killing the lot of us?[/f QUOTE]

Because not all Christians take the Bible litterally?

Pay attention to the content here... some men came and told the new Christians that they had to follow the laws of Moses...The same as your question here.

Acts 15:1-12
The Jerusalem Council

But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, describing in detail the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the brothers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and to order them to keep the law of Moses."

So the topic you raise here was raised by them, exactly. This is what they decided...

Cont.
The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."

And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

And so they recognized that the Holy Spirit led Gentiles just like it led them (the followers of the law), and thus, the gentile Christians did NOT need to become "Jews" and follow the laws of Moses before they could be saved through Christ...

Additionally, more in regards to the book of the Law, the law of Moses and theology of Christianity...

Galatians 3:10-22

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us--for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"-- so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.

Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

The law is now in Christ and Christ is in the Christian's heart.

As to the homosexual aspect of your question, sexual immorality is still forbidden practice for Christians, acceptable behaviors are described in the NT books even though the old law has been lifted, a Christians 'freedom' does not include the freedom for acting out in sexual immorality.


Dangit, next time leave some for me to cover :p

I dare someone, really, to read the Gospel and compare how much time of Jesus' ministry concerned sexuality, family values, abortion and other issues which would today be defined as conservative. Compare that with the true message of the social gospel, to help the poor, abject, disenfranchised and economically oppressed. Above all, the message of Jesus Christ is a rejection of traditional reactionary authority, and conservative clericalism, and an embrace of universal social tolerance. The rest was just added on throughout history for various political reasons.

The OT on the other hand is the most bloody soaked document in human history.

Because not all Christians take the Bible litterally?I'm not complaining :p

But if you did claim to live by the Bible, wouldn't the genocide of us fallen ones be a divine commandment? And by extension, wouldn't this hypothetical you condemn yourself by failing to carry it out?

Then why don't most Christians keep kosher or kill people ...

Because the mainstream christianity follows the interpretation of Paulus of Tarsus. Also because christianity - not Jesus, he was a jew! - used to have quite a hard strife with jews, which were depicted as deicides (slayers of god). It was the II Vatican Council (about 40 years ago) that definitely abolished a prayer "pro perfidos iudaeos", that is, for (the repenting and conversion) of the "evil jews".
A real important bit of Jesus's teaching, that has lead to leave the Old Testament's commandaments about killing people for disregarding some laws, for example, is the "love thy neighbour". Following this saying of Jesus, some of the most violent practices of the Old Testament were regarded as archaic and rendered void by the new covenant between God and humanity, estabilished by the sacrifice of Christ.

Very simple. Also, I'm sure you can find a lot of good sources that will explain you the developement of christian tradition and theology far better than I can do - you know, I'm an atheist after all.


Added: I'm sure that there is an analogy in Islam; the islamic tradition encomprises not only the Qur'an, but also later interpretations and rulings made by caliphs and imams. In the same way that not just the christian Bible isn't the only source of christian tradition.

Spoiler: God turns out to be a hoax.

I can't explain, especially since I got the impression the only bit of the OT that's void, is the stuff about sacrificing. But I have a similar question.

If God snuffed everyone but Noah and that lot, aren't all non-Christians people who've rejected God, and if that's the case, why aren't Christians killing the lot of us?

'cuz God sayz that he won't do it again

Read the Noah story. It's all there. ;)

'cuz God sayz that he won't do it again

Read the Noah story. It's all there. ;)You misunderstood.

According to the Noah thing, every last one of us must be descendants of his lot. That means the non-Christians and probably the non-orthodox Christians too, have renounced the faith (as we don't live in accordance with the Bible).

Now according to the Bible (ten commandments, and I think a couple of other places), people who renounce Christianity must be put to death if you're a Christian, or at least an orthodox one.

Hence my question of why we're not the victims of genocide. God itself doesn't have anything to do with it directly, it's just the religious law shit.

And yes, I know my question's rather silly, because of course no sane person wants to kill 2/3rds (or more likely 99.9%) of the humanity, but isn't it sort of a requirement for being a Bible-believing Christian?

You misunderstood.

According to the Noah thing, every last one of us must be descendants of his lot. That means the non-Christians and probably the non-orthodox Christians too, have renounced the faith (as we don't live in accordance with the Bible).

Now according to the Bible (ten commandments, and I think a couple of other places), people who renounce Christianity must be put to death if you're a Christian, or at least an orthodox one.

Hence my question of why we're not the victims of genocide. God itself doesn't have anything to do with it directly, it's just the religious law shit.

And yes, I know my question's rather silly, because of course no sane person wants to kill 2/3rds (or more likely 99.9%) of the humanity, but isn't it sort of a requirement for being a Bible-believing Christian?

Really?

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

I may be missing something, but I don't see where it says non-Christians shall be put to death. There may be examples in the Bible, but I would posit that most examples are a result of doctrinal teaching originally put forth during the Middle Ages. Unless you can find me an example, I'll continue to believe that it is not my holy duty to cleanse the world through murder. I could be wrong, though.

I think it's largely because some Christians prefer to believe in Paul instead of Jesus.
You see, Jesus wanted everybody to be treated equal and with respect. Which is very difficult. But then along came Paul, who provided some excellent excuses to go on treating women as inferior and regarding gays as sinners... brilliant, isn't it?

I think it's largely because some Christians prefer to believe in Paul instead of Jesus.
You see, Jesus wanted everybody to be treated equal and with respect. Which is very difficult. But then along came Paul, who provided some excellent excuses to go on treating women as inferior and regarding gays as sinners... brilliant, isn't it?

Everyone knows that Jesus told Paul those things anyway. And none of the other apostles were holy enough to hear it. I mean, why else would they all say something different?

Everyone knows that Jesus told Paul those things anyway. And none of the other apostles were holy enough to hear it. I mean, why else would they all say something different?

I guess it must be because Paul was the one with the sunstroke, who fell of his horse and hit his head... things like that make you holy and give you authority, don't you know?

Then why don't most Christians keep kosher or kill people who don't honour the Sabbath and so on while following some old testament laws like no homosexuality, even though Jesus never(to my knowledge) spoke about it? I've heard some Christians say the reason they don't keep kosher and such is because the Old testament is null and void with the arrival of the New testament. So why follow things like the ten commandments and other old testament laws? anyone care to explain.
Because Jesus came along and said, "You don't have to follow any of them old rules, except for the ones you want to follow, like the ones about how we hate fags and stuff. Just pick the bits that you like, and you can point to those passages and tell people that God's on your side. But don't worry about the bits you don't like. It's all good."

Jesus was chill like that.

Really?

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

I may be missing something, but I don't see where it says non-Christians shall be put to death. There may be examples in the Bible, but I would posit that most examples are a result of doctrinal teaching originally put forth during the Middle Ages. Unless you can find me an example, I'll continue to believe that it is not my holy duty to cleanse the world through murder. I could be wrong, though.What kind of Bible are you using? Mine says:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before
me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any
graven image, or any likeness of any
thing that is in heaven above, or that
is in the earth beneath, or that is in
the water under the earth: Thou shalt
not bow down thyself to them, nor
serve them: for I the Lord thy God am
a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of
the fathers upon the children unto the
third and fourth generation of them
that hate me; And showing mercy
unto thousands of them that love me,
and keep my commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the
Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will
not hold him guiltless that taketh his
name in vain.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep
it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and
do all thy work: But the seventh day is
the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it
thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor
thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant,
nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle,
nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates: For in six days the Lord made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that
in them is, and rested the seventh day:
wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath
day, and hallowed it.

5. Honor thy father and thy mother:
that thy days may be long upon the
land which the Lord thy God giveth
thee.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s
house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant,
nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his ass, nor any thing that is thy
neighbor’s.

You're right though. I fucked up my little postulate, even if the practical difference is pretty much inconsequential.

EDIT: Damn, I never even noticed the 10th says you shan't covet your neighbours arse. Oh the joys of infantile humour :D

I guess it must be because Paul was the one with the sunstroke, who fell of his horse and hit his head... things like that make you holy and give you authority, don't you know?

Small Gods, anyone? :)

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s
house, thou shalt not covet thy
neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant,
nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his ass, nor any thing that is thy
neighbor’s.[/I]

You're right though. I fucked up my little postulate, even if the practical difference is pretty much inconsequential.

EDIT: Damn, I never even noticed the 10th says you shan't covet your neighbours arse. Oh the joys of infantile humour :D

Aha! That's where they get off that homosexuality's a sin! :D

Seriously though, I just pulled it off the Internet. Gets the job done, as I always say.

I guess it must be because Paul was the one with the sunstroke, who fell of his horse and hit his head... things like that make you holy and give you authority, don't you know?

Oh yeah, that's totally how it works.

'cuz God sayz that he won't do it again

Read the Noah story. It's all there. ;)

You are wrong. What god said was "I give you this symbol(rainbow) as a token of My word not to destroy the world by flood again". He said nothing about destroying the evils of humanity again just not in the same manner.

Read the noah story and pay attention. :eek:

And if we all come from Adam and Eve, how come incest is not allowed?

Also is it coincedence that the slang term ' I don't Adam and Eve it' means I don't belive it?

And if we all come from Adam and Eve, how come incest is not allowed?
The 11th Commandment:
Thou shalt not point out inconsistencies in the Bible

Also is it coincedence that the slang term ' I don't Adam and Eve it' means I don't belive it?

It's a conspiracy! The cockneys are trying to warn us of something!



But what?!

Small Gods, anyone? :)

I always suspected Paul was a tortoise.... :)

The 11th Commandment:
Thou shalt not point out inconsistencies in the Bible



It's a conspiracy! The cockneys are trying to warn us of something!



But what?!

Ahhh now the cockney Bible, I'd like to see a copy of that!

Its because of politics.

Maybe it was like that in the begining. But when the Roman Empire chose the church as its oficial religion, they used it to control people. And it was like that for hundreds of years.

The protestants didnt help much either. The catholic church had to make changes to apease the followers, otherwise they would defect to the protestants, that had a much easier aproach to religion.

The church is even having a hard time making sure people dont abort their babies and use condoms. If they start saying you shouldnt eat pork, they are as good as history.

If they start saying you shouldnt eat pork, they are as good as history.I eagerly await the nice little Nazi Pope telling me not to eat pork. I'm vegan anyway, so really, I won't mind. Tell me now, please?

I eagerly await the nice little Nazi Pope telling me not to eat pork. I'm vegan anyway, so really, I won't mind. Tell me now, please?

Ohhh i got roast pork for dinner tonight! Yummy!

You are wrong. What god said was "I give you this symbol(rainbow) as a token of My word not to destroy the world by flood again". He said nothing about destroying the evils of humanity again just not in the same manner.

Read the noah story and pay attention. :eek:

Yes He did.

King James:

"21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Genesis, 8:21

The rainbow is the symbol of God's covenant with the earth in which he says "15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

Genesis 9:15

So yes, he mentions that the water will no longer consume the earth, and the rainbow is the symbol that he will not use that particular method, but he also promises not to smite every living thing again. You could argue that "as I have done" in 8:21 refers to the action of using water, but I am no Arimaic (sp?) or Greek (or Hebrew) scholar, so I can't say if that translation refers to the means (water) or the action (smiting all living creatures).

To my understanding, humanity need not fear a global smiting at the hands of God.

King James:

"21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."

Genesis, 8:21

The rainbow is the symbol of God's covenant with the earth in which he says "15 And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

Genesis 9:15

So yes, he mentions that the water will no longer consume the earth, and the rainbow is the symbol that he will not use that particular method, but he also promises not to smite every living thing again. You could argue that "as I have done" in 8:21 refers to the action of using water, but I am no Arimaic (sp?) or Greek (or Hebrew) scholar, so I can't say if that translation refers to the means (water) or the action (smiting all living creatures).

To my understanding, humanity need not fear a global smiting at the hands of God.


Until the time comes that revelations speaks about? Danm did God lie to us?

I eagerly await the nice little Nazi Pope telling me not to eat pork. I'm vegan anyway, so really, I won't mind. Tell me now, please?

The Pope really only matters to Catholics. Others use his teachings as guidelines, but that's why I love being Episcopalian. Wine for everyone, none of the Catholic guilt, lots of tradition (I really love that stuff), and no Pope. :)

Until the time comes that revelations speaks about? Danm did God lie to us?

I dunno. Perhaps. I'll look into it, it's been awhile since I read the Book of Revelation (no 's') anyway. From what I've learned about the Bible, there are many aspects that are contrary, but not contradictory, and with a little thought can be reconciled.

EDIT: Actually, he promises in Genesis not to destroy every living thing. I'm going off on a limb here but I don't think in Revelation he kills everyone. Just the nonbelievers, and those marked with the number of the beast.

Ohhh i got roast pork for dinner tonight! Yummy!It's a good thing you like it. If you were anything like me, you'd be spending dinner staring at your plate with a sort of morbid, disgusted fascination, and very probably annoying the hell out of your fellow diners.

My point, however, was simply that if the Pope telling me not to eat Pork would make Catholicism history, it's a sacrifice I'm rather eager to make. Seeing as I don't eat it & think the Catholic Church is the bastard son of Satan.The Pope really only matters to Catholics. Others use his teachings as guidelines, but that's why I love being Episcopalian. Wine for everyone, none of the Catholic guilt, lots of tradition (I really love that stuff), and no Pope.If only it didn't involve Bible-based and similar superstitions, I'd be converting already. Unfortunately wine is a poor substitute for my autonomy, so you'll have to make do without me. Not to worry though, it's probably a good thing for the both of us.

For the same reason that many Jews ignore a good chunk of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Many of the laws are stupid.

Someone may have already said this (like Multiland says, I can't be arsed just this minute to read the whole thread), but my understanding is that the kosher laws plus a few other things, like circumcision, were left out as part of Saint Paul's taking the Message to the Gentiles. The early Christians had a bit of a crisis over including non-Jewish people in the congregation, indeed, the Acts of the Apostles deals with that very subject, in part, and Paul writes about it in one or two of his letters. Anyway, the short version is that they decided the Law of the Old Testament had been fulfilled by the coming of Christ and that it was not necessary for a Christian to observe the dietary laws or circumcision, etc. I would also think that after the Jewish revolt in the 60's, the early Church tried to distance itself from the Jews.

It's a good thing you like it. If you were anything like me, you'd be spending dinner staring at your plate with a sort of morbid, disgusted fascination, and very probably annoying the hell out of your fellow diners.

My point, however, was simply that if the Pope telling me not to eat Pork would make Catholicism history, it's a sacrifice I'm rather eager to make. Seeing as I don't eat it & think the Catholic Church is the bastard son of Satan.If only it didn't involve Bible-based and similar superstitions, I'd be converting already. Unfortunately wine is a poor substitute for my autonomy, so you'll have to make do without me. Not to worry though, it's probably a good thing for the both of us.


Heheh not that I believe in such a thing, but I think perhaps you are correct, if Satan had abastard son it would be the Pope, which one?, hehe all of them.

Then why don't most Christians keep kosher or kill people who don't honour the Sabbath and so on while following some old testament laws like no homosexuality, even though Jesus never(to my knowledge) spoke about it? I've heard some Christians say the reason they don't keep kosher and such is because the Old testament is null and void with the arrival of the New testament. So why follow things like the ten commandments and other old testament laws? anyone care to explain.

I've spent a lot of time reading the Quran, and one thing I'd like you to explain to me is why so much of it refers to things that can't be found in other spots in the Quran - I mean, so much of it reads strangely as though there's no context. For something that is supposed to be the word of Allah (he's the one talking), there are also odd places where it reads "if Allah wills it" which is a strange thing for Allah himself to say.

It's supposed to be the Mother of all Books - and if that's supposed to be true, then Allah needs a continuity editor.

It's pretty common in the Old and New Testament as well - and what's even funnier, is that punctuation in the translation seems to warp the meaning of even the simplest sentence.

For example:

"Verily I say unto thee this day, With Me shalt thou be in Paradise." Luke 23:43.

Or is it:

"Verily I say unto thee, this day with Me shalt thou be in Paradise." Luke 23:43.

The comma between the words "thee" and "to day" was inserted by the translators. The original Greek text, which had neither punctuation nor word division reads: "amen soi lego semeron met emou ese en to paradeiso," literally, "truly to-you I-say today with-me you-will-be in the paradise." The adverb "semeron," "today," stands between the two verbs "lego," "I-say," and "ese," "you-will-be," and might properly apply to either. Its position immediately following the verb "lego," "I-say," may imply a closer grammatical relationship to it than to the verb "ese," "you will be."

To place the comma before the word "today" thus makes Christ contradict what He and the various New Testament writers have plainly stated elsewhere. Accordingly, the Scriptures themselves require that the comma be placed after the word "to day," not before it.

The Quran (as I have to read a translation) is even more of a mess at every turn.

Yeah if I'm not mistaken Seventh Day Adventists honor the sabbath.

Yeah, but the SDA Church is wacky in its own way.

For the same reason that many Jews ignore a good chunk of the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Many of the laws are stupid.

Aye.

A lot of people are starting to realize that these laws, especially, were not laws of God, but laws handed down by some asshole king, and therefore pretty much invalid to their religion.

I've spent a lot of time reading the Quran, and one thing I'd like you to explain to me is why so much of it refers to things that can't be found in other spots in the Quran - I mean, so much of it reads strangely as though there's no context. For something that is supposed to be the word of Allah (he's the one talking), there are also odd places where it reads "if Allah wills it" which is a strange thing for Allah himself to say.

It's supposed to be the Mother of all Books - and if that's supposed to be true, then Allah needs a continuity editor.

It's pretty common in the Old and New Testament as well - and what's even funnier, is that punctuation in the translation seems to warp the meaning of even the simplest sentence.

For example:

"Verily I say unto thee this day, With Me shalt thou be in Paradise." Luke 23:43.

Or is it:

"Verily I say unto thee, this day with Me shalt thou be in Paradise." Luke 23:43.

The comma between the words "thee" and "to day" was inserted by the translators. The original Greek text, which had neither punctuation nor word division reads: "amen soi lego semeron met emou ese en to paradeiso," literally, "truly to-you I-say today with-me you-will-be in the paradise." The adverb "semeron," "today," stands between the two verbs "lego," "I-say," and "ese," "you-will-be," and might properly apply to either. Its position immediately following the verb "lego," "I-say," may imply a closer grammatical relationship to it than to the verb "ese," "you will be."

To place the comma before the word "today" thus makes Christ contradict what He and the various New Testament writers have plainly stated elsewhere. Accordingly, the Scriptures themselves require that the comma be placed after the word "to day," not before it.

The Quran (as I have to read a translation) is even more of a mess at every turn.

The Qur'an as you know was written in Arabic, a language still alive and well today. It is said that unless you are reading the Qur'an in Arabic, you are not reading the Qur'an. Which is part of the reason it is so strongly recommended that all Muslims learn Arabic, at least to the point where you can read the Qur'an. There are many who point to the Qur'an itself as a miracle and sign from Allah swt as no man as ever written a verse in Arabic close what is in the Qur'an which leads many to believe the Qur'an could have only come from Allah. So the problems you are finding in reading a translation of the Qur'an is because of the fact you are reading a translation so words lose some of their power and meaning or make it seem disjointed.

The Qur'an as you know was written in Arabic, a language still alive and well today. It is said that unless you are reading the Qur'an in Arabic, you are not reading the Qur'an. Which is part of the reason it is so strongly recommended that all Muslims learn Arabic, at least to the point where you can read the Qur'an. There are many who point to the Qur'an itself as a miracle and sign from Allah swt as no man as ever written a verse in Arabic close what is in the Qur'an which leads many to believe the Qur'an could have only come from Allah. So the problems you are finding in reading a translation of the Qur'an is because of the fact you are reading a translation so words lose some of their power and meaning or make it seem disjointed.

Sorry, I've even had people who can read the Arabic try and explain the disjoints, and they can't without resorting to the Hadith, and additional scholarly works.

Surely, being written over a thousand years ago the qu'ran would have been written in the arabic of the time. Wouldn't there as I assume be significant differences between the language of the Qu'ran and modern arabic in a similar way to the way that Chaucer's writing is incomprehensible to most modern day english speakers.

Then why don't most Christians keep kosher or kill people who don't honour the Sabbath and so on while following some old testament laws like no homosexuality, even though Jesus never(to my knowledge) spoke about it?

They still kill people who don't observe the Sabbath, they just do it in secret now.

I've heard some Christians say the reason they don't keep kosher and such is because the Old testament is null and void with the arrival of the New testament. So why follow things like the ten commandments and other old testament laws? anyone care to explain.

No.

Then why don't most Christians keep kosher or kill people who don't honour the Sabbath and so on while following some old testament laws like no homosexuality, even though Jesus never(to my knowledge) spoke about it? I've heard some Christians say the reason they don't keep kosher and such is because the Old testament is null and void with the arrival of the New testament. So why follow things like the ten commandments and other old testament laws? anyone care to explain.

That's what I'm asking myself every time American Christians justify the death penalty with "Eye for an eye". :rolleyes:

I always just assumed they believed in both the Old and New Testament (after all, they read the bible and the bible contains the Old and the New one) and picked stuff from whichever of the two they liked better for any given situation.

That's what I'm asking myself every time American Christians justify the death penalty with "Eye for an eye". :rolleyes:

I always just assumed they believed in both the Old and New Testament (after all, they read the bible and the bible contains the Old and the New one) and picked stuff from whichever of the two they liked better for any given situation.

"OK, we'll keep the part about killing gays, but ditch the part about not wearing a polycotton blend. And I gotta be honest with you guys, the no shellfish thing? I kinda like lobster...if you want, in exchange, we'll keep the part about compensating your neighbor if you accidentally kill his ox."

The Qur'an as you know was written in Arabic, a language still alive and well today.

English, as a language, is about as old, and trying to read old english texts is difficult enough without dealing with protoenglish things like beowulf, which is about as old as the Qur'an.

Arabic has changed, and is no more representative of the exact wording of the qu'ran than william shakespeare is representative of modern english.

Silly...some things are literal, and some things are metaphors.

I mean, clearly polycotton blend is a metaphor for um...not mixing...um...maybe not marrying someone who is not of the same faith...and creating an 'unnatural fabric of faith'? Yeah, that's it!

Ok, so sometimes its literal, and sometimes it's metaphor...


We can keep the part about killing gays, right?

Silly...some things are literal, and some things are metaphors.

I mean, clearly polycotton blend is a metaphor for um...not mixing...um...maybe not marrying someone who is not of the same faith...and creating an 'unnatural fabric of faith'? Yeah, that's it!Um, no. Have you never read the bible? It's actually polycotton blend.

"OK, we'll keep the part about killing gays, but ditch the part about not wearing a polycotton blend. And I gotta be honest with you guys, the no shellfish thing? I kinda like lobster...if you want, in exchange, we'll keep the part about compensating your neighbor if you accidentally kill his ox."

Silly...some things are literal, and some things are metaphors.

I mean, clearly polycotton blend is a metaphor for um...not mixing...um...maybe not marrying someone who is not of the same faith...and creating an 'unnatural fabric of faith'? Yeah, that's it!

"OK, we'll keep the part about killing gays, but ditch the part about not wearing a polycotton blend. And I gotta be honest with you guys, the no shellfish thing? I kinda like lobster...if you want, in exchange, we'll keep the part about compensating your neighbor if you accidentally kill his ox."

"And no planting two crops in the same field? That's not efficient farming. And frankly, I like a bit of bacon with my eggs in the morning. So, yeah, here, gimme that manuscript and a pen, I'll make a few cuts and it'll be perfect."

There was an episode relatively early on in The West Wing in which President Bartlett did the same riff on an Ann Coulter-ish character who was at some radio personalities day thing at the White House. The best part was at the end when he looked at her, sitting there, and said, "And when the president stands, no one sits."

Um, no. Have you never read the bible? It's actually polycotton blend.

1) No, you think I don't have better things to do? I did smoke a joint once, rolled in a page ripped from the bible though.
2) I'm sure it's a metaphor. That's why people can ignore the literal meaning. It's just a really obscure, lame metaphor.
3) Is your sarcasm metre broken dear?:D

...some things are literal, and some things are metaphors.but which is which?

Absolutely! Now you've got it! *beams*

But sometimes sodomy is a metaphor, and we get to engage in a bit of that on the sly. BTW, TG.

ooooh, ok, so that thing that my girlfriend secretly lets me do on the weekends is alright?

*whew* that's a relief, it's a good thing that all the rules are only metaphors when it comes to limiting our own behavior.

Back at ya, talking in white is the COOL thing to do after all.

Ok, so sometimes its literal, and sometimes it's metaphor...


We can keep the part about killing gays, right?

Absolutely! Now you've got it! *beams*

But sometimes sodomy is a metaphor, and we get to engage in a bit of that on the sly. BTW, TG.

but which is which?

the ones that would make us stop doing the things we like to do are metaphors.

The ones that would make other people stop doing the things they like to do but that we don't like them doing are literal.

Seems like god got all into the writing flow and forgot to actually tell us his name. God is his title, as christ is Jesus' title. We don't know god's first or last name, and we don't know Jesus' last name.

True, but we know Jesus' middle initial is H. *nod*

Really?

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

I may be missing something, but I don't see where it says non-Christians shall be put to death. There may be examples in the Bible, but I would posit that most examples are a result of doctrinal teaching originally put forth during the Middle Ages. Unless you can find me an example, I'll continue to believe that it is not my holy duty to cleanse the world through murder. I could be wrong, though.


Seems like god got all into the writing flow and forgot to actually tell us his name. God is his title, as christ is Jesus' title. We don't know god's first or last name, and we don't know Jesus' last name.

'cuz God sayz that he won't do it again

oh, god promised? Well that's good of him. Did he pinky swear though? I'm not sure I believe him if he didn't pinky swear.

3) Is your sarcasm metre broken dear?:DWhy, just what I was about to ask you! :eek:

Seems like god got all into the writing flow and forgot to actually tell us his name. God is his title, as christ is Jesus' title. We don't know god's first or last name, and we don't know Jesus' last name.The biblical god's name is Yah, or Ya or Ia, or its sumerian equivalent Enki, which again is a title.

Why, just what I was about to ask you! :eek:

oh come on girls, why don't you kiss and make up? With tongue.

And let me watch.

Seems like god got all into the writing flow and forgot to actually tell us his name. God is his title, as christ is Jesus' title. We don't know god's first or last name, and we don't know Jesus' last name.

I don't think we're supposed to know God's real name. Names are powerful and if you know someone's real, true name you have a certain power over them. As for Jesus, I would imagine that he'd be called Yeshua ben Yosef. The Hebrews of that time didn't have surnames the way we think of them now. In fact, many European Jews did not have standard surnames until forced to adopt them by the Austrian and German Empires. This is why you have lots of Central and Eastern European Jews all with the same or similar last names.

'cuz God sayz that he won't do it again

Read the Noah story. It's all there. but why did he do it in the first place? since god has foreknowledge and time does not matter, he is supposed to know that his killing off humanity is evil. omniscient gods don't get or need second chances, you know.

Move over, Arthais. :p

You can join them if you'd like.

oh come on girls, why don't you kiss and make up? With tongue.

And let me watch.Not now. She's got my widdle brain all confused about if there's a second meaning to "polycotton blends" that would make it possible for it to be actually mentioned in the bible... :confused: :(

*head kersplodes*

oh come on girls, why don't you kiss and make up? With tongue.

And let me watch.

Move over, Arthais. :p

Seems like god got all into the writing flow and forgot to actually tell us his name. God is his title, as christ is Jesus' title. We don't know god's first or last name, and we don't know Jesus' last name.

of Nazareth, Jesus Christ.

We do too know his last name, see?

As for God, well, when you're omnipotent and omniscient, you can afford to live a little simply. "I am the Lord your God." After all that publicity, He has to maintain a low profile, lest the paparazzi find out who's actually behind the curtain. And Lord knows what the ACLU would do if they found out His name...there's a laundry list of grievances that trumps the petty lawsuits against even the most maniacal government...

I don't think we're supposed to know God's real name. Names are powerful and if you know someone's real, true name you have a certain power over them. As for Jesus, I would imagine that he'd be called Yeshua ben Yosef. The Hebrews of that time didn't have surnames the way we think of them now. In fact, many European Jews did not have standard surnames until forced to adopt them by the Austrian and German Empires. This is why you have lots of Central and Eastern European Jews all with the same or similar last names.

Kay so why bother having the commandment in the first place if you're not actually going to give the name?

ooooh, ok, so that thing that my girlfriend secretly lets me do on the weekends is alright? Yes. Except when it's not. And generally the 'not' is going to involve witnesses, so you should be in the clear unless you are an exhibitionist.

Hence the need to have cameras in the bedroom of gay men, so we can ensure they don't get the benefit of the metaphor interpretation!

*whew* that's a relief, it's a good thing that all the rules are only metaphors when it comes to limiting our own behavior. Well not all of them. "Love thy neighbour" or whatever should be taken literally. And Canada neighbours the US, so see you this weekend? :D

And I'm nothing if not cool

oh, god promised? Well that's good of him. Did he pinky swear though? I'm not sure I believe him if he didn't pinky swear.

Has God broken a promise?

but by did he do it in the first place? since god has foreknowledge and time does not matter, he is supposed to know that his killing off humanity is evil. omniscient gods don't get or need second chances, you know.

Well I remember something along the lines of "My angels went down and started fucking the human women, so we ended up with freakish angelhumans, so I had to stop that shit right quick."

But I double sarcasticked you. I sarcastically replied to your sarcasm, and I think that for some reason, this caused a kitten to shit on a white carpet somewhere in Thailand.

My god though...you've just triple sarcasticked me, and I can't imagine the fecal outcome of that. *shudders*This. (http://otoboke.txt-nifty.com/torio/images/elephant-toilet.jpg)

Why, just what I was about to ask you! :eek:

But I double sarcasticked you. I sarcastically replied to your sarcasm, and I think that for some reason, this caused a kitten to shit on a white carpet somewhere in Thailand.

My god though...you've just triple sarcasticked me, and I can't imagine the fecal outcome of that. *shudders*

Kay so why bother having the commandment in the first place if you're not actually going to give the name?
Oh, in Exodus 34, where the real 10 commandments are, the biblical god names himself "jealousy". which is very telling...

Move over, Arthais. :p

Oy. Did someone have the good sense to bring along a video camera?

Not now. She's got my widdle brain all confused about if there's a second meaning to "polycotton blends" that would make it possible for it to be actually mentioned in the bible... :confused: :(

*head kersplodes*

Together, we can make up any sort of wacky interpretations, couch them as metaphors for insanely unrelated things, AND make out, all at once. Yes Farny, you can join...but no Arthais, you don't get pictures unless you put out yourself.

but why did he do it in the first place? since god has foreknowledge and time does not matter, he is supposed to know that his killing off humanity is evil. omniscient gods don't get or need second chances, you know.

Genesis chapters 7 through 9 have what you need.

I am not very religious, however, I do follow the bible.

I don't follow the new testament, i follow the old testament. I'm not sure why. I am more familiar with it. I also think that the old testament is just stories handed down through the generations. Fables if you will. Most in the Hebrew bible. I eat fish twice a week, and don't eat meat too often. I guess i stay "kosher." I also don't eat pork.

Another thing.. why would the early Christians had included the old testament in the bible if it was 'null and void' due to the new testament. Christianity would be little without Judaism. In fact, it wouldn't exist. Islam wouldn't have either. We (Christians) really owe a lot to the Jews.

And oddly enough, an elephant was exactly what I had in mind!As creating the huge pile of shit that's the bible? No, that weren't elephants, that were Jews.

http://otoboke.txt-nifty.com/torio/images/elephant-toilet.jpg

And oddly enough, an elephant was exactly what I had in mind!

It's always the jews with you, isn't it?well, i'm not responible for the fact that jews wrote the bible. am i? it was a macedonian pharaoh who encouraged them to write it. maybe i should blame him? but then again, he didn't put in it what's in it, did he?

Together, we can make up any sort of wacky interpretations, couch them as metaphors for insanely unrelated things, AND make out, all at once. Yes Farny, you can join...but no Arthais, you don't get pictures unless you put out yourself.

Can anyone join in this....whatever?

As creating the huge pile of shit that's the bible? No, that weren't elephants, that were Jews.

It's always the jews with you, isn't it?

Oh, in Exodus 34, where the real 10 commandments are, the biblical god names himself "jealousy". which is very telling...

Indeed.


I take the lord's name in vain:


JEALOUSY JEALOUSY JEALOUSY JEALOUSY.


And fuck, the word's lost all meaning.

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.put the blame where it belongs...

Can anyone join in this....whatever?

I don't know...last time we arranged some good NSG group sex, a bunch of us got molested by the Mods.

And so far, no one but me has given consent, so careful...

well, i'm not responible for the fact that jews wrote the bible. am i? it was a macedonian pharaoh who encouraged them to write it. maybe i should blame him? but then again, he didn't put in it what's in it, did he?

A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

put the blame where it belongs...

On the jews? Like what...in general, or specifically for the old testament?

On the jews? Like what...in general, or specifically for the old testament?
of course for the old testament, the tanakh, the septuaginta, the bible. whatever you wish to call it. and the teaching spread through it. and the deeds done because of these teachings.

Wait, Macedonian Pharaoh?:rolleyes: Ptolemaios I, called Soter, a former general of Alexander's, founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty, which ruled until the Romans took over Egypt.

of course for the old testament, the tanakh, the septuaginta, the bible. whatever you wish to call it. and the teaching spread through it. and the deeds done because of these teachings.

So the Crusades, and Christian fundies like Phelps are the fault of the jews?

Christ, the jews just can't win with you, can they?

of course for the old testament, the tanakh, the septuaginta, the bible. whatever you wish to call it. and the teaching spread through it. and the deeds done because of these teachings.

Wait, Macedonian Pharaoh?

So the Crusades, and Christian fundies like Phelps are the fault of the jews?well, they created the ideological basis for all that (and still hold on to it)

Christ, the jews just can't win with you, can they?not until they drop judaism

well, they created the ideological basis for all that

not as long as they do not drop judaism

Your opinions on 'teh ebil j00z' are truly repugnant. I almost forgot how much I dislike pretty much everything you post here, and how much of a nazi-approach you take to your commentary.

Yes, I said nazi-approach. I'll use that interchangeably with jew-hating. Just FYI.

I don't know...last time we arranged some good NSG group sex, a bunch of us got molested by the Mods.

And so far, no one but me has given consent, so careful...

What's this I hear about group sex?

What's this I hear about group sex?

Well, so far I appear to be a group of one, so additions are welcome :D

Well, so far I appear to be a group of one, so additions are welcome :D

Hey, if there are refreshments ... :p

Hey, if there are refreshments ... :p

Tea and bannock, baby :)

Your opinions on 'teh ebil j00z' are truly repugnant. I almost forgot how much I dislike pretty much everything you post here, and how much of a nazi-approach you take to your commentary.

Yes, I said nazi-approach. I'll use that interchangeably with jew-hating. Just FYI.little godwin here? but you should know that is doesn't take a nazi (and i doubt you know what that really is at all) to hate the bible, its teachings, those who originated it, and those who still adhere to it. i suppose that just reading the bible would be sufficient for that.

little godwin here? but you should know, that is doesn't take a nazi (and i doubt you know what that really is at all) to hate the bible, its teachings, those who originated it, and those who still adhere to it. i suppose that just reading the bible would be sufficient for that.

It's not godwinning at all to mention that the bulk of your posts on this forum tend to express your hatred, rather than anything rational or useful to read. And that in particular, your hatred of Jews means yes, you've earned the title 'Nazi', in the sense that this term is commonly used these days.

It's not godwinning at all to mention that the bulk of your posts on this forum tend to express your hatred, rather than anything rational or useful to read. And that in particular, your hatred of Jews means yes, you've earned the title 'Nazi', in the sense that this term is commonly used these days.hatred? no. rational contempt? of course. if there are positive aspects to anything i'll point them out. but i really don't see any in the biblical ideology.
and as for your nazi-remark: for me judaism and national socialism share quite a lot of ideology when it comes to racism or the idiotic belief that there is a group of people that's somehow special, no matter if they call it herrenmensch or chosen seed. it's the same crap.

If Godwinning merely means making a comparison between an individual and the nazi party, you have godwinned, no matter how accurate or inaccurate your statements are.

Sure, whatever.

As long as 'godwin' can mean 'accurate portrayal of someone's position' too.

It's not godwinning at all to mention that the bulk of your posts on this forum tend to express your hatred, rather than anything rational or useful to read. And that in particular, your hatred of Jews means yes, you've earned the title 'Nazi', in the sense that this term is commonly used these days.

If Godwinning merely means making a comparison between an individual and the nazi party, you have godwinned, no matter how accurate or inaccurate your statements are.

hatred? no. rational contempt? of course. if there are positive aspects to anything i'll point them out. but i really don't see any in the biblical ideology.

Ever read any Nietzsche?

So much anger...so much hate...the path to the dark side are these!

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

It can.

Yup, just wanted that pointed out very obviously. Because a lot of people seem to think that you can never, ever call someone a nazi.

Even when it is quite suitable.

Sure, whatever.

As long as 'godwin' can mean 'accurate portrayal of someone's position' too.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

It can.

Ever read any Nietzsche?No. Should I ?

Yup, just wanted that pointed out very obviously. Because a lot of people seem to think that you can never, ever call someone a nazi.

Even when it is quite suitable.very funny. but you forget that even if nazis had never existed, the bible would still be crap. the fact of the matter is that you have nothing to say on the matter. it was suitable for me to point to the jews as being the authors of the bible, which is an undeniably fact, whereas for you it was not suitable at all to throw around names.

No. Should I ?

It would probably help. There are a lot of misconceptions about the intent and meaning behind "God is dead."

And that's the least of Nietzche's work.

Personally I'd start with Also Sprach Zarathustra, but I'm sure HR has a better starting point.

very funny. but you forget that even if nazis had never existed, the bible would still be crap. the fact of the matter is that you have nothing to say on the matter. it was suitable for me to point to the jews as being the authors of the bible, which is an undeniably fact, whereas for you it was not suitable at all to throw around names.

It's suitable for me to call your views nazi-like, and jew-hating when you straight out agreed that the jews are to blame for Fred Phelps and the Crusades etc.

I could have just called your views nutty.

Nonetheless, an entirely suitable commentary.

I'm beginning to find your militant atheism a little disconcerting, and I consider myself a borderline atheist/agnostic.

Ask yourself: is there truly a valid argument to be made for the righteous ire you display in your condemnation of faith? Or are you merely acting out against it because of insecurities in your own position, or as a result of an abject hatred for those who believe, for whatever reason?i am no atheist. and i do condemn faith only because it is the opposite and enemy of knowledge. and i do not hate believers, i only have contempt for the unreasonable.


It would probably help. There are a lot of misconceptions about the intent and meaning behind "God is dead."
And that's the least of Nietzche's work.
Personally I'd start with Also Sprach Zarathustra, but I'm sure HR has a better starting point."God is dead" is something i have heard of but never cared for, as it does not reflect my approach on ancient beliefs. It is in fact more accurate to say that the biblical god never lived (in the ways the bible claims he does).

very funny. but you forget that even if nazis had never existed, the bible would still be crap.

I'm beginning to find your militant atheism a little disconcerting, and I consider myself a borderline atheist/agnostic.

Ask yourself: is there truly a valid argument to be made for the righteous ire you display in your condemnation of faith? Or are you merely acting out against it because of insecurities in your own position, or as a result of an abject hatred for those who believe, for whatever reason?

No. Should I ?

Yeah. Mostly, I'm just surprised you haven't already, given some of your views.

This site may offer a good overall introduction.

http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche.html

It would probably help. There are a lot of misconceptions about the intent and meaning behind "God is dead."

And that's the least of Nietzche's work.

Personally I'd start with Also Sprach Zarathustra, but I'm sure HR has a better starting point.

Not really. I think your suggestion is sound.

Yeah. Mostly, I'm just surprised you haven't already, given some of your views.

This site may offer a good overall introduction.

http://www.pitt.edu/~wbcurry/nietzsche.html

Christianity as antiquity.-- When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?I can. In fact I know that such things are believed today. Dumb ass christian denominations are getting ever louder. However I have reasonable doubts that such things were believed 2500 years ago and prior. of course i refer to the jewish parts of what Nietzsche refers to (since of course the christian parts were inexistent back then).

Surely, being written over a thousand years ago the qu'ran would have been written in the arabic of the time. Wouldn't there as I assume be significant differences between the language of the Qu'ran and modern arabic in a similar way to the way that Chaucer's writing is incomprehensible to most modern day english speakers.

Of course.

That is why people go to Universities like Al-Azhar to study and interpret that and not every Arab who can speak Arabic, can read and understand clearly what is written in the Qur'an.

And even if you can read Qur'an, you still need hadiths to fill up the gaps.

I can. In fact I know that such things are believed today. Dumb ass christian denominations are getting ever louder. However I have reasonable doubts that such things were believed 2500 years ago and prior. of course i refer to the jewish parts of what Nietzsche refers to (since of course the christian parts were inexistent back then).

Now are you going to read the rest of his work?

He has plenty of insightful writings on a variety of other subjects. His thoughts on Christianity and Judaism tend to get more attention, either because it supports the anti-Christian/anti-Jewish thought of those who read it or because it offends the Christian/Judaic sensibilities of those who read it. But reading him with either of those perspectives tends to limit one's understanding of his meaning rather sharply, I find.

Now are you going to read the rest of his work?I doubt it. I prefer reading historians and ancient authors.

He has plenty of insightful writings on a variety of other subjects. His thoughts on Christianity and Judaism tend to get more attention, either because it supports the anti-Christian/anti-Jewish thought of those who read it or because it offends the Christian/Judaic sensibilities of those who read it. But reading him with either of those perspectives tends to limit one's understanding of his meaning rather sharply, I find.I tend to look at Christianity or Judaism from a 2500-year-ago perspective, considering the circumstances at the time and those in even earlier ages (that is, the real circumstances as they were, not as the bible claims they were).

It's suitable for me to call your views nazi-like, and jew-hating when you straight out agreed that the jews are to blame for Fred Phelps and the Crusades etc.
No, it's really not. An essential characteristic of Naziism is a hatred of (ethnic) Jews as a race. UB, on the other hand, has expressed a disdain for (religious) Jews as practitioners of a certain religion. The difference is enormous.

I doubt it. I prefer reading historians and ancient authors.

I tend to look at Christianity or Judaism from a 2500-year-ago perspective, considering the circumstances at the time and those in even earlier ages (that is, the real circumstances as they were, not as the bible claims they were).

I have a question for you.

If the Tanakh said, oh, for example, that when a foreign army was occupying Jerusalem that the Angels of the Lord came in the night and forced the foreign army out...

And the history of the foreign land happened to say that what really happened was that some of the Jewish leaders came out in the night and bribed the occupiers to leave, so they just up and left...

Which would you believe? The former? The latter? Neither?

I have a question for you.

If the Tanakh said, oh, for example, that when a foreign army was occupying Jerusalem that the Angels of the Lord came in the night and forced the foreign army out...

And the history of the foreign land happened to say that what really happened was that some of the Jewish leaders came out in the night and bribed the occupiers to leave, so they just up and left...

Which would you believe? The former? The latter? Neither?I'd dismiss the former and regard the latter a possibility.

I've asked the same and got no answer but "Jesus fulfilled the law".

Some Christians do keep the OT laws, though (perhaps not to the extreme of killing people who don't honour the sabbath, but they will restrict their diet).

Many restrict their diet because kosher food is actually very healthy when balanced.

I've asked the same and got no answer but "Jesus fulfilled the law".

Some Christians do keep the OT laws, though (perhaps not to the extreme of killing people who don't honour the sabbath, but they will restrict their diet).

Yeah. So like when I burned down my neighbors house because he wouldn't shut that damn dog up I didn't have to go to jail because my roommate didn't do it. My roommate fulfilled the law, so I was exempt. :)

Oh, Wait, that's bullshit, isn't it?

Many restrict their diet because kosher food is actually very healthy when balanced.

That's the same with any food.

You won't die of heart disease if you substitute beef for pork and chicken for shellfish provided your overall diet is balanced.

Yeah. So like when I burned down my neighbors house because he wouldn't shut that damn dog up I didn't have to go to jail because my roommate didn't do it. My roommate fulfilled the law, so I was exempt. :)

Oh, Wait, that's bullshit, isn't it?

Erm...probably. Mind rephrasing that so I can understand what you're on about?

Kay so why bother having the commandment in the first place if you're not actually going to give the name?

LORD is the name given for God in the English-translation of the Bible. God's actual name is Jehovah. All occurences of Jehovah were translated to LORD. So you see, the name IS given, right in the same sentence, you'd just never know it because they changed it to LORD. They did the same for Jesus' name. His name was Yeshua, but they often wrote his nickname: Isa (which is how his name comes up as Isoo in the Koran; Isa in Hebrew, Isoo in Arabic). They switched out the Greek and replaced "Messiah" with "Christ" when they translated it to Latin. So "Jesus Christ" is just the latinized form of his name. But most English translations of the Bible today are awful, same goes for the Koran. The Koran reads like poetry in Arabic, and the Old Testament poetry books are seriously badass poetry in Hebrew.

LORD is the name given for God in the English-translation of the Bible. God's actual name is Jehovah. All occurences of Jehovah were translated to LORD. So you see, the name IS given, right in the same sentence, you'd just never know it because they changed it to LORD. They did the same for Jesus' name. His name was Yeshua, but they often wrote his nickname: Isa (which is how his name comes up as Isoo in the Koran; Isa in Hebrew, Isoo in Arabic). They switched out the Greek and replaced "Messiah" with "Christ" when they translated it to Latin. So "Jesus Christ" is just the latinized form of his name. But most English translations of the Bible today are awful, same goes for the Koran. The Koran reads like poetry in Arabic, and the Old Testament poetry books are seriously badass poetry in Hebrew.Since when is "LORD" a name? It's a title. And Jehovah is the anglicized form of the latinized form of Yhvh (Yahweh), which is the hypocoristic form of the merged names of Yah and his wife Asherah.

I'd dismiss the former and regard the latter a possibility.

My personal opinion would be that both accounts are most likely propaganda designed to make their respective nations look better/their enemies look weaker.

Now, if I were pro-Jewish, I might suggest that what really happened was that Jewish soldiers made a strike against key assets of the occupiers during the night and forced them to leave, and as a morale-boosting measure told the people that the Angels of the Lord had come in the night. And what really happened is that the foreign occupiers tried to extort money from the Jewish leaders (not that the Jews bribed them), but the best they could do was steal some stuff on their way out so they didn't look like total failures when they got home.

It's just as plausible an interpretation, perhaps more so, than the foreigners suggesting that the Jewish leaders willingly gave away a bunch of money to bribe the foreigners to leave when the Jews had a long history of fighting and killing, and that the foreigners just up and left without taking advantage of the opportunity to conquer a people whose leaders were stooping to bribery of the enemy. And what really happened is that the Jewish leaders tried to hide their shameful dealing with the enemy by saying that the Angels of the Lord caused them to leave.

Honestly, they both sound like bullshit. And because I'm not into pre-emptively interpreting historical accounts in a way that favors or disfavors one group over another, I think I'll just go with the idea that they were probably both putting propaganda into their histories to make themselves look better. I'm silly like that.

My personal opinion would be that both accounts are most likely propaganda designed to make their respective nations look better/their enemies look weaker.

Now, if I were pro-Jewish, I might suggest that what really happened was that Jewish soldiers made a strike against key assets of the occupiers during the night and forced them to leave, and as a morale-boosting measure told the people that the Angels of the Lord had come in the night. And what really happened is that the foreign occupiers tried to extort money from the Jewish leaders (not that the Jews bribed them), but the best they could do was steal some stuff on their way out so they didn't look like total failures when they got home.

It's just as plausible an interpretation, perhaps more so, than the foreigners suggesting that the Jewish leaders willingly gave away a bunch of money to bribe the foreigners to leave when the Jews had a long history of fighting and killing, and that the foreigners just up and left without taking advantage of the opportunity to conquer a people whose leaders were stooping to bribery of the enemy. And what really happened is that the Jewish leaders tried to hide their shameful dealing with the enemy by saying that the Angels of the Lord caused them to leave.

Honestly, they both sound like bullshit. And because I'm not into pre-emptively interpreting historical accounts in a way that favors or disfavors one group over another, I think I'll just go with the idea that they were probably both putting propaganda into their histories to make themselves look better. I'm silly like that.The Angels of which Lord do you talk about? Baal? Yah? El? And which siege of Jerusalem? By whom?

The Angels of which Lord do you talk about? Baal? Yah? El? And which siege of which Jewish town? By whom?

I was speaking hypothetically to illustrate the problem of interpreting history in light of one's biases for or against a group, so why are you even asking those questions? How are they remotely relevant?

I was speaking hypothetically to illustrate the problem of interpreting history in light of one's biases for or against a group, so why are you even asking those questions? How are they remotely relevant?Well, if you ignore the propaganda and just take out the info that the city was spared, that should be enough. If one side reports bribery it's at least a more reasonable explanation. The theological re-interpretation is of absolutely no value. And if indeed one side claims divine intervention, I want to know exactly whose intervention.

Well, if you ignore the propaganda and just take out the info that the city was spared, that should be enough. If one side reports bribery it's at least a more reasonable explanation. The theological re-interpretation is of absolutely no value. And if indeed one side claims divine intervention, I want to know exactly whose intervention.

For someone who has a strong interest in Jewish culture and religious thought, it seems very odd to me that you can't see why theological re-interpretation of events would have strong value for them.

To suggest that you don't share that value is fair, but suggesting that it's not there is nonsensical.

As far as whose intervention it was, I think we can just safely say it was the Jewish deity du jour for the purposes of the example.

For someone who has a strong interest in Jewish culture and religious thought, it seems very odd to me that you can't see why theological re-interpretation of events would have strong value for them.

To suggest that you don't share that value is fair, but suggesting that it's not there is nonsensical.

As far as whose intervention it was, I think we can just safely say it was the Jewish deity du jour for the purposes of the example.I have no interest in Jewish culture. What is Jewish culture, anyways? And when did it begin?
And who and how is the Jewish deity du jour, really?

I have no interest in Jewish culture. What is Jewish culture, anyways? And when did it begin?
And who and how is the Jewish deity du jour, really?

You'd at least think you'd want to know about that which you seem to enjoy slagging so much...

I have no interest in Jewish culture. What is Jewish culture, anyways? And when did it begin?
And who and how is the Jewish deity du jour, really?

Look, UB, I've made my point about your bias. If you would rather try to sort out the historical facts and fictions of a hypothetical scenario and deconstruct the notions of Jewishness and the Jewish God instead of admitting and confronting that bias, so be it. It strikes me as somewhat unhelpful to yourself to go that route, but it's your perogative to choose the road you wish to take. I'm sure you'll do fairly well regardless of the route you choose, because you seem to be a very intelligent person.

I'll just note that the definition of Jewish culture, like any other culture, is quite problematic because of the nature of culture as a non-linear developmental process that does not easily divide into discrete units.

I leave you to enjoy further deconstruction of Jewishness and your quest to find historical fact in a hypothetical scenario. If you do find a historical basis for the example I gave, please let me know. I'd be interested to see the evidence of it.

As to the homosexual aspect of your question, sexual immorality is still forbidden practice for Christians, acceptable behaviors are described in the NT books even though the old law has been lifted, a Christians 'freedom' does not include the freedom for acting out in sexual immorality.

I've never met a Christian who can explain WHY homosexuality is immoral without resorting to "God said so" . . .

I've never met a Christian who can explain WHY homosexuality is immoral without resorting to "God said so" . . .

Well they're the same people who constantly imply that the Bible is the only reason that people don't run naked through the streets having sex with their own children.

Well they're the same people who constantly imply that the Bible is the only reason that people don't run naked through the streets having sex with their own children.

What, we're not allowed to do that anymore? Fucking nazis.