INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Vortex_13 on June 30, 2007, 12:04:17 AM
-
I know that the bible is pretty hardcore on male homosexuals what with the stoning and all. But if you actually read the verses that deal with the punishments for gays it is conspicuously silent on lesbians. so the next time you are talking with a fundamentalist you can just say "But the Lord loves him some girl on girl action" :evillaugh:
-
I know that the bible is pretty hardcore on male homosexuals what with the stoning and all. But if you actually read the verses that deal with the punishments for gays it is conspicuously silent on lesbians. so the next time you are talking with a fundamentalist you can just say "But the Lord loves him some girl on girl action" :evillaugh:
I have read the bible cover to cover...so I will agree with you. funny how all the buttfucking is MADWRONG.....but no one ever says anything about girl love.
it could be because they just thought women were so goddamned inferior, that they didn't merit a mention...but I prefer your option...they just liked girl on girl action.
-
i :heart: Leviticus - makes me crack up every time.
:LMAO:
-
i :heart: Leviticus - makes me crack up every time.
:LMAO:
shut up, witch...and go hide your dirty bleeding. :P
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
I'm of the opinion that since men were allowed multiple wives that no man would ever outlaw two women together.
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
I love how the religious fanatics like to pretend that GOD wrote their bible...and not MAN.
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
:plus:
-
i :heart: Leviticus - makes me crack up every time.
:LMAO:
shut up, witch...and go hide your dirty bleeding. :P
shan't. i save it for potions, anyway. :eyebrows:
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
:plus:
:laugh: :plus:
-
i :heart: Leviticus - makes me crack up every time.
:LMAO:
shut up, witch...and go hide your dirty bleeding. :P
shan't. i save it for potions, anyway. :eyebrows:
and I thought I was the only one. :angel:
-
;)
nah - i know a couple of us, at least... :eyebrows:
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
I love how the religious fanatics like to pretend that GOD wrote their bible...and not MAN.
A but see that's the beaty of my argument. I'm speaking from the LITERAL text.So when some fundamentalist is swpouting about gays it's the perfect time to bust out the lesbian argument. And if they try to say it's implied you can just say "Now this is divinely inspired so you're supposed to read it literally. So lesbians must be fine with God.Right?"
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
I love how the religious fanatics like to pretend that GOD wrote their bible...and not MAN.
A but see that's the beaty of my argument. I'm speaking from the LITERAL text.So when some fundamentalist is swpouting about gays it's the perfect time to bust out the lesbian argument. And if they try to say it's implied you can just say "Now this is divinely inspired so you're supposed to read it literally. So lesbians must be fine with God.Right?"
and what happens, then? when you slap that trout in their face?
-
i prefer to get them on "you're an abomination if you eat prawns" number. pithy. :laugh:
-
Well they don't technically waste their ovaries when having sex. The whole wasting of the male seed is God's problem with gay male sex, masturbation, and anything outside marriage really. God is all about procreation, especially so the Israelis can have enough young men to throw at the surrounding Muslim nations.
-
Well they don't technically waste their ovaries when having sex.
says who? mine feel fucking wasted afterwards, and if they don't, i want to know why.
-
They don't need those numbers.They got the nukes if things go bad for them.
-
They don't need those numbers.They got the nukes if things go bad for them.
Yay for France giving Israel the best nuclear plant technology lol... most people think it was the US lololol.
-
They don't need those numbers.They got the nukes if things go bad for them.
you mean the GAWD BOMBS ????
-
Well they don't technically waste their ovaries when having sex.
says who? mine feel fucking wasted afterwards, and if they don't, i want to know why.
I doubt too many fundamentalists are making there wives feel too "wasted" after sex.I mean we're talking missionary position only,no foreplay.
-
Well they don't technically waste their ovaries when having sex.
says who? mine feel fucking wasted afterwards, and if they don't, i want to know why.
Well if they technically still can be impregnated, then they really aren't wasted in God's view. Anyways you aren't a Jew living in those times. It wasn't decided until well after Jesus's death to even spread Christianity to the Gentiles.
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
I love how the religious fanatics like to pretend that GOD wrote their bible...and not MAN.
A but see that's the beaty of my argument. I'm speaking from the LITERAL text.So when some fundamentalist is swpouting about gays it's the perfect time to bust out the lesbian argument. And if they try to say it's implied you can just say "Now this is divinely inspired so you're supposed to read it literally. So lesbians must be fine with God.Right?"
and what happens, then? when you slap that trout in their face?
They usually change the subject about how they wish they could help you just accept Jesus and be saved.Fundamentalists aren't very good at explaining the contradictionjs in there beliefs.
-
Well they don't technically waste their ovaries when having sex.
says who? mine feel fucking wasted afterwards, and if they don't, i want to know why.
I doubt too many fundamentalists are making there wives feel too "wasted" after sex.I mean we're talking missionary position only,no foreplay.
you obviously don't know the missionaries i know...
anyway, how d'you know? you've done a survey, or something, have you? cor - perv those melons, boy!
Well if they technically still can be impregnated, then they really aren't wasted in God's view. Anyways you aren't a Jew living in those times. It wasn't decided until well after Jesus's death to even spread Christianity to the Gentiles.
how do you know?
-
how do you know?
Because these aren't the times of the Old Testament... You aren't living in Isreal 4 thousand or so odd years ago right now. I do not know if you are genetically a Jew or not though.
-
Well they don't technically waste their ovaries when having sex.
says who? mine feel fucking wasted afterwards, and if they don't, i want to know why.
I doubt too many fundamentalists are making there wives feel too "wasted" after sex.I mean we're talking missionary position only,no foreplay.
I'm only going by what there church preaches. If they are behaving within the guidelines of there church then they are doing missionary only and only for the purposes of procreation. Of course I'm not going to even pretend that anyone but the hard core believers are doing that but still....
you obviously don't know the missionaries i know...
anyway, how d'you know? you've done a survey, or something, have you? cor - perv those melons, boy!
Well if they technically still can be impregnated, then they really aren't wasted in God's view. Anyways you aren't a Jew living in those times. It wasn't decided until well after Jesus's death to even spread Christianity to the Gentiles.
how do you know?
-
This Vortex guy might just turn me into a born-again christian!! :laugh:
-
This Vortex guy might just turn me into a born-again christian!! :laugh:
I know,right. If you just follow the bible literally you too can have multiple wives who have lesbian orgies while you watch....
-
how do you know?
Because these aren't the times of the Old Testament... You aren't living in Isreal 4 thousand or so odd years ago right now. I do not know if you are genetically a Jew or not though.
how do you know?
:laugh:
anyway, there's no such thing as a genetic jew.
-
Well they don't technically waste their ovaries when having sex.
says who? mine feel fucking wasted afterwards, and if they don't, i want to know why.
:plus:
-
anyway, there's no such thing as a genetic jew.
There's no such thing as a white race either ...... what's your point??
-
This Vortex guy might just turn me into a born-again christian!! :laugh:
I know,right. If you just follow the bible literally you too can have multiple wives who have lesbian orgies while you watch....
Then again, with the contradictions contained in it,
if you follow it literally, you'd probably manage to
do something both required AND proscribed.
-
anyway, there's no such thing as a genetic jew.
There's no such thing as a white race either ...... what's your point??
my point is that there's no biological racial definition of jewishness, as opposed to negroid, caucasian, etc. it's an ethnic/cultural subdivision, rather than physiological. get the hair out of your arse.
-
there is too a genetic jew!
jews are gorgeous, have dark hair and big noses. and are very talented. and names end in man or berg.
plus they always reincarnate as jews.
-
there is too a genetic jew!
not really. anyway, the whole typological model of the classification of "race" has been discredited. there are schools of thought which argue that there is no biological basis for a racial definition at all, "race" being a socio-political concept, whereas others argue that there is a biological basis, based on epidemiological and immunological factors (e.g. predisposition and susceptibility to diseases - i'm thinking of sickle cell anaemia and hypolactasia, for example).
-
jews are a race! look at their looks, they have a specific look. why do i like jew guys so much? because they look a certain way. that's called a race. also a soul race. they reincarnate into jews over and over again. ask Kryon. :P
white people have no race. races are so mixed up anyway. but like, the asians are from a different planet than black people. we're all from somewhere not earth. :P as races.
-
if you mention starseeds. i will probably have to kill you. please don't.
:laugh:
-
:laugh:
mum's the word. i wouldn't want to fight the one who took on god! ;)
-
:laugh:
mum's the word. i wouldn't want to fight the one who took on god! ;)
oh, don't bother with god - he was crap. i've had better sex with my underwear, by accident.
-
that'll teach you to tuck yerself in properly. ;)
-
that'll teach you to tuck yerself in properly. ;)
:LMAO: :plus:
well, i'm still getting used to what side i "dress". :P or to the whole concept of underwear, to be honest. :laugh:
i suppose i could take longer...loooonger... ooooooh... to tuck myself in? :diddle:
-
:laugh: i'm getting some funky imagery.
-
:laugh: i'm getting some funky imagery.
i'm getting the urge to go and have a... lie down for a bit. is it hot in here, or is it me? :o
-
we should open the windows.
*opens the window*
*a bird flies in*
-
we should open the windows.
*opens the window*
*a bird flies in*
nooooooo! don't let calandale in here - i'll lose the ability to understand anything, after 2 nanoseconds of his gibberish, and my brain will try to leap out of my ears!
-
NOOOOOOOOOO it'll jump out of the window!
-
NOOOOOOOOOO it'll jump out of the window!
eh? what - my brain? the bird? my underwear? (what am i saying - WHAT underwear?)
-
your brain, Gary.
-
who the fuck's gary?!! two timing cow! :grrr:
-
your brain! :laugh:
-
your brain! :laugh:
sorry - i can't process that: my brain's just flown out of the window.
-
*retrieves it for you via mind controllation of Calandale*
-
*retrieves it for you via mind controllation of Calandale*
"controllation"! :LMAO:
-
how about controllication. :P
-
"controllification"?
oh noes - we sound like dubya! :puke: :kapow:
-
OH NOSE! ZOMG!!!
-
what's the Z for? ???
-
no reason :green:
-
no reason :green:
random Z, eh? wow, that's, like, cosmic, totally ! :happydance:
-
yeah man, like, outerspacemic :rocklee:
-
we should open the windows.
*opens the window*
*a bird flies in*
:bird:
I was invited.
-
we should open the windows.
*opens the window*
*a bird flies in*
:bird:
I was invited.
No, you just happened to be at the right place at the wrong time.
-
are you a vampire Calandale? do you need an invitation to enter this thread? :P
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
KJV says in Deuteronomy 6:7 "And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
KJV says in Deuteronomy 6:7 "And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Oh. That's nice.
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
KJV says in Deuteronomy 6:7 "And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Oh. That's nice.
Book of Mormon Mosiah 1:4 "For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the alanguage of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time."
Should I quote any more Scriptures from any book?
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
KJV says in Deuteronomy 6:7 "And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
Oh. That's nice.
Book of Mormon Mosiah 1:4 "For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the alanguage of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even down to this present time."
Should I quote any more Scriptures from any book?
If you like. I won't read them though.
Are you obsessed with children?
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
Probably because God is our Father, and he knows better than us because we're his spawn, his children.
Now, I never bother reading any holy scriputures or really get into any theological discussion because most religions are secularised and are filled with more deranged bullshit than your average pagan like our ol' Vivi.
(Emphasis on the "i" because Vivi practically loathes it when I refer to her as "Viv". Oh shit, I messed up. Oh almighty parenthesises, don't fail me now -- protect me from the onslaughts from our very own comedienne witch!)
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
I can work out what's right or right myself, thanks.
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
I can work out what's right or right myself, thanks.
Thats good.
KJV 1 Samuel 25:23&24 "And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground,
24 And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be: and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of thine handmaid."
Abigail had to be educated to know what was right and wrong. Even speaking to David and for David to listen to Her. That is being educated knowing right from wrong.
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
The problem being that the books you are quoting are works of fiction. The book of Mormon esepcially was. It was writen by Joseph Smith. The first edition lists him as the author.
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
The problem being that the books you are quoting are works of fiction. The book of Mormon esepcially was. It was writen by Joseph Smith. The first edition lists him as the author.
Leave the fairy tale stories to the kids, that's what I always say.
Hands up if anyone wants all monotheistic religions to be disbanded and place all the "divine" clergy into proper jobs. Meeee!
-
(Emphasis on the "i" because Vivi practically loathes it when I refer to her as "Viv". Oh shit, I messed up. Oh almighty parenthesises, don't fail me now -- protect me from the onslaughts from our very own comedienne witch!)
you mean there are serious ones?! :yikes:
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
they might've taught girls right from wrong, bu they certainly didn't teach them how to read. girls didn't get to go to the temple for education. check out your history.
-
Give us a funny religious anecdote to lighten up the mood, Vivi. C'mon, you know you want to.
-
Give us a funny religious anecdote to lighten up the mood, Vivi. C'mon, you know you want to.
i can't. i was never taught to read and write. i am, in fact, channelling.
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
The problem being that the books you are quoting are works of fiction. The book of Mormon esepcially was. It was writen by Joseph Smith. The first edition lists him as the author.
Don't You use books that where written for witchs?
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
The problem being that the books you are quoting are works of fiction. The book of Mormon esepcially was. It was writen by Joseph Smith. The first edition lists him as the author.
Don't You use books that where written for witchs?
nope. there is no "bible" for witches. a lot of twaddle, mind you, so perhaps that equates. there's no dogma attached to Wicca, officially, just lots of little egomaniacs, running round, shouting about their own theories on What Should Be Done, and making themselves look like prats.
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
The problem being that the books you are quoting are works of fiction. The book of Mormon esepcially was. It was writen by Joseph Smith. The first edition lists him as the author.
Don't You use books that where written for witchs?
nope. there is no "bible" for witches. a lot of twaddle, mind you, so perhaps that equates.
I pity the poor witch that tells me what's the right approach to witchcraft. If I want to impart curses on random people who piss me off, and to worship deranged prairie dogs, then I fucking will! (Not before I use the right incantation to make his/her head to explode.)
Eh he he he he!
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
The problem being that the books you are quoting are works of fiction. The book of Mormon esepcially was. It was writen by Joseph Smith. The first edition lists him as the author.
I was quoting these for some do believe in them.
-
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
To show all children where educated boys and girls. You even had to educate girls and women to know what is right and wrong. Without educating them then they would never had known what is righ or wrong in the end.
The problem being that the books you are quoting are works of fiction. The book of Mormon esepcially was. It was writen by Joseph Smith. The first edition lists him as the author.
Don't You use books that where written for witchs?
nope. there is no "bible" for witches. a lot of twaddle, mind you, so perhaps that equates. there's no dogma attached to Wicca, officially, just lots of little egomaniacs, running round, shouting about their own theories on What Should Be Done, and making themselves look like prats.
Okay.
-
I was quoting these for some do believe in them.
Only assholes.
-
I was quoting these for some do believe in them.
Only assholes.
not all christians are arseholes, any more that all pagans/muslims/hindus/jews are. not all of any identifiable group is either an arsehole or a jolly nice chap. that's over-simplified thinking. get out there and make up your own mind.
-
I was quoting these for some do believe in them.
Only assholes.
So are You calling Me a asshole then. ::)
-
I was quoting these for some do believe in them.
Only assholes.
not all christians are arseholes, any more that all pagans/muslims/hindus/jews are. not all of any identifiable group is either an arsehole or a jolly nice chap. that's over-simplified thinking. get out there and make up your own mind.
Only assholes believe the bullshit written in the Bible.
-
I was quoting these for some do believe in them.
Only assholes.
not all christians are arseholes, any more that all pagans/muslims/hindus/jews are. not all of any identifiable group is either an arsehole or a jolly nice chap. that's over-simplified thinking. get out there and make up your own mind.
Only assholes believe the bullshit written in the Bible.
So since I believe in the Bible I am a asshole huh. ::)
-
I was quoting these for some do believe in them.
Only assholes.
not all christians are arseholes, any more that all pagans/muslims/hindus/jews are. not all of any identifiable group is either an arsehole or a jolly nice chap. that's over-simplified thinking. get out there and make up your own mind.
Only assholes believe the bullshit written in the Bible.
So since I believe in the Bible I am a asshole huh. ::)
Yes.
-
I was quoting these for some do believe in them.
Only assholes.
not all christians are arseholes, any more that all pagans/muslims/hindus/jews are. not all of any identifiable group is either an arsehole or a jolly nice chap. that's over-simplified thinking. get out there and make up your own mind.
Only assholes believe the bullshit written in the Bible.
So since I believe in the Bible I am a asshole huh. ::)
Yes.
You can think as You want, have I tried to change You NO, or what You Believe in No. What if I was a muslim and believed in the Koran or hindus or wiccan then.
-
I was quoting these for some do believe in them.
Only assholes.
not all christians are arseholes, any more that all pagans/muslims/hindus/jews are. not all of any identifiable group is either an arsehole or a jolly nice chap. that's over-simplified thinking. get out there and make up your own mind.
Only assholes believe the bullshit written in the Bible.
So since I believe in the Bible I am a asshole huh. ::)
Yes.
You can think as You want, have I tried to change You NO, or what You Believe in No. What if I was a muslim and believed in the Koran or hindus or wiccan then.
lol I never said you had tried to change me or what I believe in. Neither have I tried to change you. I simply expressed my opinion.
-
I was quoting these for some do believe in them.
Only assholes.
not all christians are arseholes, any more that all pagans/muslims/hindus/jews are. not all of any identifiable group is either an arsehole or a jolly nice chap. that's over-simplified thinking. get out there and make up your own mind.
Only assholes believe the bullshit written in the Bible.
So since I believe in the Bible I am a asshole huh. ::)
Yes.
You can think as You want, have I tried to change You NO, or what You Believe in No. What if I was a muslim and believed in the Koran or hindus or wiccan then.
lol I never said you had tried to change me or what I believe in. Neither have I tried to change you. I simply expressed my opinion.
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
-
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
Don't cry. :(
-
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
Don't cry. :(
I am not crying.
-
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
Don't cry. :(
I am not crying.
You can admit it.
-
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
Don't cry. :(
I am not crying.
You can admit it.
There is nothing to admit.
-
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
Don't cry. :(
I am not crying.
You can admit it.
There is nothing to admit.
Yes there is, Admit that you confused a mythology book the Jews plagerized from the Summerians and Babylonians as being the 100% factual divine truth.
-
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
Don't cry. :(
I am not crying.
You can admit it.
There is nothing to admit.
Yes there is, Admit that you confused a mythology book the Jews plagerized from the Summerians and Babylonians as being the 100% factual divine truth.
So what books are these?
-
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
Don't cry. :(
I am not crying.
You can admit it.
There is nothing to admit.
Yes there is, Admit that you confused a mythology book the Jews plagerized from the Summerians and Babylonians as being the 100% factual divine truth.
So what books are these?
The Old Testament, the book of Genisis especially. God creating the world in 6 days, garden of eden, noah's ark, are all stories the Summerians made up over 1,200 years before the first bibles were writen. Some of the stories were re-told in the epic of Gilgamesh and that's how the Jews (who were worshiping other gods at the time) came across these stories and borrowed them to create the "God of Abraham".
-
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
Don't cry. :(
I am not crying.
You can admit it.
There is nothing to admit.
Yes there is, Admit that you confused a mythology book the Jews plagerized from the Summerians and Babylonians as being the 100% factual divine truth.
So what books are these?
The Old Testament, the book of Genisis especially. God creating the world in 6 days, garden of eden, noah's ark, are all stories the Summerians made up over 1,200 years before the first bibles were writen. Some of the stories were re-told in the epic of Gilgamesh and that's how the Jews (who were worshiping other gods at the time) came across these stories and borrowed them to create the "God of Abraham".
Can You find these books online?
-
The significance of the bible was in ethics and monotheism and in the historical perspective it provided, but most people nowadays know that the fables are fables.
-
The significance of the bible was in ethics and monotheism and in the historical perspective it provided, but most people nowadays know that the fables are fables.
Maybe We as Men and Women are fables too. ;D
-
That would make it so much easier.
-
That would make it so much easier.
Yeah it would.
-
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
Don't cry. :(
I am not crying.
You can admit it.
There is nothing to admit.
Yes there is, Admit that you confused a mythology book the Jews plagerized from the Summerians and Babylonians as being the 100% factual divine truth.
So what books are these?
The Old Testament, the book of Genisis especially. God creating the world in 6 days, garden of eden, noah's ark, are all stories the Summerians made up over 1,200 years before the first bibles were writen. Some of the stories were re-told in the epic of Gilgamesh and that's how the Jews (who were worshiping other gods at the time) came across these stories and borrowed them to create the "God of Abraham".
Can You find these books online?
Yes, but i can't be arsed to find them. Google the name "Zisudra" and start combing through the search results. You'll eventually stumble upon a motherload of Summerian mythology. Do the same thing with the epic of gilgamesh and you'll find the Babalonian myths the bible copied.
-
Yeah but You think I am a asshole though for whatever reason when I have not called You by any defamatory name.
Don't cry. :(
I am not crying.
You can admit it.
There is nothing to admit.
Yes there is, Admit that you confused a mythology book the Jews plagerized from the Summerians and Babylonians as being the 100% factual divine truth.
So what books are these?
The Old Testament, the book of Genisis especially. God creating the world in 6 days, garden of eden, noah's ark, are all stories the Summerians made up over 1,200 years before the first bibles were writen. Some of the stories were re-told in the epic of Gilgamesh and that's how the Jews (who were worshiping other gods at the time) came across these stories and borrowed them to create the "God of Abraham".
Can You find these books online?
Yes, but i can't be arsed to find them. Google the name "Zisudra" and start combing through the search results. You'll eventually stumble upon a motherload of Summerian mythology. Do the same thing with the epic of gilgamesh and you'll find the Babalonian myths the bible copied.
Thanks.
-
don't call Kevv an asshole.
-
don't call Kevv an asshole.
Yeah.
-
don't call Kevv an asshole.
Why not?
I didn't even direct it personally at him until he ASKED me if he was an asshole lol
What am I supposed to do, lie? :yawn:
-
you'll get an asskicking.
-
you'll get an asskicking.
Yeah.
-
I'm not scared of getting an ass kicking :asthing:
-
I'm not scared of getting an ass kicking :asthing:
What about an ass pounding??
-
I'm not scared of getting an ass kicking :asthing:
What about an ass pounding??
No one's getting anywhere near my ass, thank you very much. >:D
-
I'm not scared of getting an ass kicking :asthing:
What about an ass pounding??
No one's getting anywhere near my ass, thank you very much. >:D
You don't Milla.
-
i'll take my Gimp and shove him up Soph's ass. :P
-
i'll take my Gimp and shove him up Soph's ass. :P
ZOMG I'm so scared...
-
i'll take my Gimp and shove him up Soph's ass. :P
whatza gimp?
-
leather sex monkey.
-
Sounds like fun to me!
:party:
-
i'll take my Gimp and shove him up Soph's ass. :P
whatza gimp?
Didn't you ever see Pulp Fiction??
-
yeah whatzza matter with you? :P
-
yeah whatzza matter with you? :P
Whatzza matter with you here??
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
yeah whatzza matter with you? :P
Whatzza matter with you here??
Leave Her alone bud.
-
yeah whatzza matter with you? :P
Whatzza matter with you here??
Leave Her alone bud.
I'm just :razz: ing her back... calm down Kevv, Maybe we should cut you off. Somebody call a Taxi and drive Kevv home. :laugh:
-
if only straight people go to heaven that's a pity. we're gonna have a smashin' time in hell. :green:
-
yeah whatzza matter with you? :P
Whatzza matter with you here??
i'm spasming from your hotness. :P
-
if only straight people go to heaven that's a pity. we're gonna have a smashin' time in hell. :green:
Who's buying the first round of drinks??
-
in hell satan buys them for a small price... your soul. >:D
-
i'm only kidding. drinks are free there. :P
-
I know that the bible is pretty hardcore on male homosexuals what with the stoning and all. But if you actually read the verses that deal with the punishments for gays it is conspicuously silent on lesbians. so the next time you are talking with a fundamentalist you can just say "But the Lord loves him some girl on girl action" :evillaugh:
The first five books of the old testament were first written down in the 8th or 7th centuries BC, during a time in Israelite society when monotheism was developing for the first time and also indivudalism (for instance the extended family disappered in Israel and nuclear family became the norm), when all worship was being centralised in one temple and to one god Yahweh.
The rule in Leviticus (which is a law code) outlawing male-male sex was put in to stamp out the homosexual sex associated with the worship of Astarte the goddess of fertility, sexuality, and war. Since girl-girl sex was not associated with any worship of gods other than Yahweh, they were not mentioned or prohibited.
-
jews are a race! look at their looks, they have a specific look. why do i like jew guys so much? because they look a certain way. that's called a race. also a soul race. they reincarnate into jews over and over again. ask Kryon. :P
white people have no race. races are so mixed up anyway. but like, the asians are from a different planet than black people. we're all from somewhere not earth. :P as races.
Jewish communities apart from those in Ethiopia are descended from migrants from the Levant and they have not intermarried very much into the local gentile populations. Considering what the Arabs of Syria and Levant look like it is no surprise some Jews look 'Middle Eastern'.
-
that's why they're so hot.
-
What of the Hell are We talking about.
-
What of the Hell are We talking about.
Hot inter-racial gay orgy action in the bible.
-
What of the Hell are We talking about.
Hot inter-racial gay orgy action in the bible.
Okay I got off topic huh.
-
are you a vampire Calandale? do you need an invitation to enter this thread? :P
VBlah!
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
Mainly because you ran out of TP.
-
The significance of the bible was in ethics and monotheism and in the historical perspective it provided, but most people nowadays know that the fables are fables.
Maybe We as Men and Women are fables too. ;D
Welcome to the TRUTH kevv.
-
you'll get an asslicking.
Fixed.
-
i'll take my Gimp and shove him up Soph's ass. :P
whatza gimp?
She has this crippled guy she keeps around for abusing
lesbians with.
-
if only straight people go to heaven that's a pity. we're gonna have a smashin' time in hell. :green:
I KNOW which ticket I want.
-
The significance of the bible was in ethics and monotheism and in the historical perspective it provided, but most people nowadays know that the fables are fables.
Maybe We as Men and Women are fables too. ;D
Welcome to the TRUTH kevv.
What TRUTH?
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
Mainly because you ran out of TP.
I didn't run out of anything.
-
The significance of the bible was in ethics and monotheism and in the historical perspective it provided, but most people nowadays know that the fables are fables.
Maybe We as Men and Women are fables too. ;D
Welcome to the TRUTH kevv.
What TRUTH?
What you said darlin'
I knew you had more of
a brain than most.
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
Mainly because you ran out of TP.
I didn't run out of anything.
Hmm...I'd suggest NOT wiping with
book pages then.
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
Mainly because you ran out of TP.
it gets me hot when people say "ORLY" .
-
I haven't touched this thread because my beliefs on the matter is that homosexuals are not wrong or evil or deviant, and I don't give a shit what it says in the bible about it. If god is against gay people then he has no respect from me.
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
Mainly because you ran out of TP.
it gets me hot when people say "ORLY" .
Do you listen to Tom Likus??
-
I haven't touched this thread because my beliefs on the matter is that homosexuals are not wrong or evil or deviant, and I don't give a shit what it says in the bible about it. If god is against gay people then he has no respect from me.
Especially since God loves all people
in all ways, and thus is gay himself.
Probably in the closet though.
-
I haven't touched this thread because my beliefs on the matter is that homosexuals are not wrong or evil or deviant, and I don't give a shit what it says in the bible about it. If god is against gay people then he has no respect from me.
Especially since God loves all people
in all ways, and thus is gay himself.
Probably in the closet though.
If you do not differentiate types of love, God doesn't love people like humans love at all. God would love humans like parents love their children but at a different level. An omnipotent being would be above human things like sexuality anyways. Has no need to reproduce and could easily produce feelings for itself that are greater in sensation than what humans could sexually. An all powerful being doesn't need base human things like sex, it is way above that and can with the power of thought do better.
-
I haven't touched this thread because my beliefs on the matter is that homosexuals are not wrong or evil or deviant, and I don't give a shit what it says in the bible about it. If god is against gay people then he has no respect from me.
well, of course.
I just thought it was a joke. anyone who thinks anything other than what you just said is a fucking tool.
-
If you do not differentiate types of love, God doesn't love people like humans love at all.
Whoa, I totally don't see this. Only seems to matter if I did differentiate.
God would love humans like parents love their children but at a different level.
Why would God be so limited? Why not ALL types of love, as I suggested?
Wouldn't that make more sense? Or wouldn't all things that we call love
which aren't a reflection of God's love not be love at all?
An omnipotent being would be above human things like sexuality anyways. Has no need to reproduce and could easily produce feelings for itself that are greater in sensation than what humans could sexually. An all powerful being doesn't need base human things like sex, it is way above that and can with the power of thought do better.
Again, this seems to go against the whole concept of the Logos,
as I understand it. It is the pattern on which all of reality is supposedly
based. Doesn't making God sexless somehow weaken his perfection?
Or is sexuality an evil? Something presumably NOT created by this
perfect being then.
-
God could have a sex, but there would be not much use for it really other than to relate to its creations. Doesn't even have to impregnate females physically. Power of thought does that. Sex is a humanly pleasure as it is among the best pleasures we can have, but it wouldn't be the same for a God though. I am talking in a monotheistic sense. God's type of love would be different because it doesn't have to feel the same type of emotions for its creations as it would towards something evenly remotely equal. God would be alone in a monotheistic sense in my opinion, most concepts of monotheistic Gods are that their actual presence would kill or harm humans in their mortal form.
-
God could have a sex, but there would be not much use for it really other than to relate to its creations. Doesn't even have to impregnate females physically. Power of thought does that. Sex is a humanly pleasure as it is among the best pleasures we can have, but it wouldn't be the same for a God though. I am talking in a monotheistic sense. God's type of love would be different because it doesn't have to feel the same type of emotions for its creations as it would towards something evenly remotely equal. God would be alone in a monotheistic sense in my opinion, most concepts of monotheistic Gods are that their actual presence would kill or harm humans in their mortal form.
Do you not see the error of discussin A God, in the monotheistic sense?
Anyhow, it's got nothing to do with use. It has to do with the patterns;
the logos. For anything to be present in reality, according to the neoplatonistic
formulations which Christianity (at the least) generally uses, it would be
NECESSARY.
-
Do you not see the error of discussin A God, in the monotheistic sense?
Anyhow, it's got nothing to do with use. It has to do with the patterns;
the logos. For anything to be present in reality, according to the neoplatonistic
formulations which Christianity (at the least) generally uses, it would be
NECESSARY.
Well if you are looking at the Bible, then it is a monotheistic God. This thread was homosexuality and the Bible. The whole point of capitalizing the word god is that there is only one. Otherwise you would be referring to shit like the Greek gods. You don't have to capitalize those and they could of course be sexual with eachother and humans. It makes less sense for a single God to do that if it is truly all powerful.
The Logos is a Catholic concept based on a word that does not exist in the Bible itself. It has to do with the Word of God and it being intermediary between God the Father and humans. The Word of God is a message sent by God and as humans can speak as soon as they think so can a God. Such a God creates and forms the world with mere words (which are basically thoughts vocalized). So if you could silence God, the powers would theoretically be useless? The Logos is also said to be Christ. Christ was seen to as not have had sex at all, he was a God in mortal form. Jesus was only here to deliver a message and he did, was persecuted and killed for that message. There are no records of Jesus having sex oustide of marriage or being married at all (the Divinci Code is BS). That seems a hard thing to believe, but Jesus made it to his 30s without having sex and then died and came back 3 days later then ascended to heaven 40 days later. God the Father still is Jehovah, the Holy Spirit and the Word (Jesus) are mainly extensions of him in my opinion that are there to relate to humans. The Holy Spirit isn't really physical and Jesus was only here a short time relatively and had no sex. I doubt God has had sex with someone if the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God is what you are referring to.
-
The Logos is a Catholic concept based on a word that does not exist in the Bible itself.
More than just Catholic. Without it, the Trinity makes on sense, no?
It has to do with the Word of God and it being intermediary between God the Father and humans. The Word of God is a message sent by God and as humans can speak as soon as they think so can a God. Such a God creates and forms the world with mere words (which are basically thoughts vocalized). So if you could silence God, the powers would theoretically be useless?
Sure. IF you can silence this supposedly omnipotent being,
which is of course impossible. Though, it is not usually considered
a spoken thing, but rather the ideal of all that is.
There are no records of Jesus having sex oustide of marriage or being married at all (the Divinci Code is BS).
Actually, that's one of the telling points, which originated with biblical scholars long
before the DaVinci Code, OR it's predecessor, but let's imagine that indeed the
ceremonies of noble marriage were not what they might appear, for the sake of
arguing within the bounds of theology.
That seems a hard thing to believe, but Jesus made it to his 30s without having sex and then died and came back 3 days later then ascended to heaven 40 days later. God the Father still is Jehovah, the Holy Spirit and the Word (Jesus) are mainly extensions of him in my opinion that are there to relate to humans. The Holy Spirit isn't really physical and Jesus was only here a short time relatively and had no sex.
Not co-equal? I thought Arianism was wiped out. Did protestants revive it?
I doubt God has had sex with someone if the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God is what you are referring to.
Not necessary. The point is that the idea of sexual love was
present. Otherwise, Christ could not have suffered, as a
human. Though, it does seem a bit odd that he could
be without sin, and do so. Always troubled me a bit.
-
The Trinity was not a concept until the New Testament and the Catholics first coined the term obviously. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are put on a equal plane. Jehovah is God and those are parts of him (thus making them on equal plane). If the Father wanted more parts for himself he could surely make them.
Jesus in mortal form dying without sin was the entire point of his sacrifice. It was God in mortal human form dying without sin and still being seperated from the Father that made it a sacrifice no matter how long the period of time spent in hell supposedly Christ went through. Right before his death, Jesus was flooded with all of the sins made by humanity then and in the future. That was his whole point of existence. After his death he paid their punishment. That is the reason people do not have to suffer in hell but are able to enter heaven. His suffering was both on earth and after his death in hell, the pain he felt has nothing to do with him seeking pleasure.
-
I haven't touched this thread because my beliefs on the matter is that homosexuals are not wrong or evil or deviant, and I don't give a shit what it says in the bible about it. If god is against gay people then he has no respect from me.
Especially since God loves all people
in all ways, and thus is gay himself.
Probably in the closet though.
If you do not differentiate types of love, God doesn't love people like humans love at all. God would love humans like parents love their children but at a different level. An omnipotent being would be above human things like sexuality anyways. Has no need to reproduce and could easily produce feelings for itself that are greater in sensation than what humans could sexually. An all powerful being doesn't need base human things like sex, it is way above that and can with the power of thought do better.
we, as individuals are the cells of god.
-
If the Father wanted more parts for himself he could surely make them.
So, there is nothing special about three?
I mean, shouldn't that be the perfect choice?
-
we, as individuals are the cells of god.
... and my most trusted and dear neighbor is a tree.
-
if she starts going on about starseeds, i really will have to kill her. ::)
-
we are all starseeds. :P
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
Not true.
O RLY?
The Bible's full of shit anyway.
Mainly because you ran out of TP.
it gets me hot when people say "ORLY" .
hmph. i was going to make an ORLY joke. i forgot. :'(
-
Milla, what are starseeds? >:D
-
we are all starseeds. :P
fuck off - i'm not. :P :laugh:
-
If the Father wanted more parts for himself he could surely make them.
So, there is nothing special about three?
I mean, shouldn't that be the perfect choice?
There is something special about all 3 because that is where God is when the Bible ends basically. God would surely be capable of creating more parts to do seperate functions if it were needed at all. Whether God chooses to create more parts or to unify them all, it does not matter. They are special because they are God. Their functions are what is important to humans anwyays.
Not familiar with the concept of starseeds and humans being cells of god. I assume it is science-fiction related.
-
starseeds are what earthlings are, we are not originally from earth but from other planets, the earth was seeded by people from somewhere else :o so in a sense we are like children of immigrants, born here but our heritage lies elsewhere. :)
we are all starseeds. :P
fuck off - i'm not. :P :laugh:
you are too. :laugh: you are a staaarseeed :P your eyelids are getting heavy... you fall into a deep slumber... you are a starseed... :P
-
Not familiar with the concept of starseeds and humans being cells of god. I assume it is science-fiction related.
no it's not. it's channeled information.
science fiction is truth related.
-
Wait. I thought we were aquatic apes .......
???
-
who fed you that bunch of hooey? :P
-
... everybody!
-
/waits with bated breath as Lucifer stalks in for the kill :evillaugh:
-
<snicker>
Shouldn't that be "baited" breath, since it's a can of worms we're into.
-
does justine bateman have bated breath?
-
Romans 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 1:27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another
What were the women's unatural passions?
-
they were lesbians!!! :green:
-
No. I believe it was that they
ended up preferring shoes to
men.
-
No. I believe it was that they
ended up preferring shoes to
men.
Shoes dipped in chocolate and encrusted with diamonds to be exact.
-
They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way.
I love how the religious fanatics like to pretend that GOD wrote their bible...and not MAN.
LOL thats true. Fuck yeah!
-
vrooom....hairy firetruck...vrooom!
-
vrooom....hairy firetruck...vrooom!
que??
-
vrooom....hairy firetruck...vrooom!
que??
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/crapart2_4.jpg)
-
A but see that's the beaty of my argument. I'm speaking from the LITERAL text.So when some fundamentalist is swpouting about gays it's the perfect time to bust out the lesbian argument. And if they try to say it's implied you can just say "Now this is divinely inspired so you're supposed to read it literally. So lesbians must be fine with God.Right?"
and what happens, then? when you slap that trout in their face?
They usually change the subject about how they wish they could help you just accept Jesus and be saved.Fundamentalists aren't very good at explaining the contradictionjs in there beliefs.
And when they bother to try, the results can be excruciatingly awful to sit through! There is just no way to rationalise taking some parts of the Hebrew Bible literally and dismissing all the parts that you don't like. One can see, for example, how they can keep the injunctions against sodomy, since Paul repeated them in the Christian Bible, but not all of the parts that fundamentalists like can be found that way. And it's inconsistent anyhow to say that Jesus fulfilled the Law, thus overturning it and inaugurating a new era, and then base your faith's teaching on that selfsame Law... As far as I'm concerned, the only honest Christian is a confused--but practising--Jew... ;D
And speaking of Jews...my point is that there's no biological racial definition of jewishness, as opposed to negroid, caucasian, etc. it's an ethnic/cultural subdivision, rather than physiological. get the hair out of your AAARRSE!!.
jews are a race! look at their looks, they have a specific look. why do i like jew guys so much? because they look a certain way. that's called a race. also a soul race. they reincarnate into jews over and over again. ask Kryon. :P
Why don't we settle this one by saying that there is a Hebrew race, from which many Jews can trace their lineage, but no Jewish race? Jews do not have a specific look; you are thinking only of the Ashkenazi Jews, just one type among many. Jews from Iran look Persian, Jews from Ethiopia are black, Jews from Yemen are Arabs, Jews from India look Hindi, etc. ad nauseam.
Jewish communities apart from those in Ethiopia are descended from migrants from the Levant and they have not intermarried very much into the local gentile populations. Considering what the Arabs of Syria and Levant look like it is no surprise some Jews look 'Middle Eastern'.
Oh, but they have! What about the frequency of blonde hair in Polish Jews, not to mention the examples above?
why do you keep emphasising children, kevv? they were talking about women, and girls didn't count as children.
Probably because God is our Father, and he knows better than us because we're his spawn, his children.
What makes G-d a father alone, when there are feminine roles and names given to him in the oral and written Torah? And then there's the whole 'consort of El' thing that never gets addressed, mostly because Canaanite religion is being discounted by Christian Bible scholars. I'd guess that English translations invariably use male genders because English has no neutral gender, and it was certainly used historically on account of patriarchal domination.
God could have a sex, but there would be not much use for it really other than to relate to its creations.
But then he could only relate to one sex, right? ;) Why limit your god-concept like that? It's especially weird when you take into account the fact that we are all born female, and that the 'Y' chromosome is actually in some danger of disappearing in future... :laugh:
Yes there is, Admit that you confused a mythology book the Jews plagerized from the Summerians and Babylonians as being the 100% factual divine truth.
So what books are these?
The Old Testament, the book of Genisis especially. God creating the world in 6 days, garden of eden, noah's ark, are all stories the Summerians made up over 1,200 years before the first bibles were writen. Some of the stories were re-told in the epic of Gilgamesh and that's how the Jews (who were worshiping other gods at the time) came across these stories and borrowed them to create the "God of Abraham".
The picture is so much more interesting than that! We now have solid archaeological sources for the original Canaanite gods, of which El was one, and for the first appearances of YHVH--far, far later. The physical evidence now backs up the textual evidence that has been argued for over a century now; namely, that the different names for G-d in the Torah actually referred originally to different beings entirely. After the Hebrews had grown closer to real monotheism (fact: throughout the period described in Torah the Jews were, at best, henotheistic, and never monotheistic), the editors who produced the final version of Torah passed down to us recombined elements from different accounts to create a single work of scripture. There is a vast literature on this subject, and if anyone's interested a good place to start might be Friedman's 'Who Wrote The Bible'. Anyroad...
The significance of the bible was in ethics and monotheism and in the historical perspective it provided, but most people nowadays know that the fables are fables.
This is the most common justification for the retention of Christianity in the modern world, and it is as much a fable as the Torah itself. Biblical ethics are simply awful; truly morally repugnant. The core of Biblical ethics lies in the demands for worship and recognition, and anything can be justified through G-d's decrees, up to and including genocide and mass-murder. The Hebrew G-d, as depicted in Torah, is one of the most outrageously evil characters in the entire Western literary tradition, and it is only centuries of childhood indoctrination into the idea that "G-s is Love!" that blinds people to that realisation.
But you're right about the historical perspective and monotheism, tho' it is questionable whether linear time and apocalyptic eschatology are good things!
The Logos is a Catholic concept based on a word that does not exist in the Bible itself. It has to do with the Word of God and it being intermediary between God the Father and humans. The Word of God is a message sent by God and as humans can speak as soon as they think so can a God. Such a God creates and forms the world with mere words (which are basically thoughts vocalized). So if you could silence God, the powers would theoretically be useless? The Logos is also said to be Christ. Christ was seen to as not have had sex at all, he was a God in mortal form.
The idea of Logos arose from the lack of historical perspective on the Bible's evolution. That line in Genesis where G-d is saying "Let us make man in our image" is now interpreted (by Christians) to mean Jesus, but if you look at the Hebrew you find a plural noun (Elohim) is being used. The passage literally means that a council of gods is making the world! It is only later, when all of these various names for G-d were taken to mean the same entity, and especially in translation where the shades of meaning in Hebrew are lost, that one can believe something as awkward as Logos or Jesus being involved.
Jesus was only here to deliver a message and he did, was persecuted and killed for that message.
Funny, then, that Jesus said essentially nothing that was inconsistent with Pharisaic Judaism... And that he did not break a single Jewish Law. He was, however, guilty of sedition under Roman law, since Moshiach was seen as a political figure intended to throw off foreign domination...
...(the Divinci Code is BS).
Yes indeed! And truly, wretched, obvious, and pernicious BS, too.
Jesus in mortal form dying without sin was the entire point of his sacrifice. It was God in mortal human form dying without sin and still being seperated from the Father that made it a sacrifice no matter how long the period of time spent in hell supposedly Christ went through. Right before his death, Jesus was flooded with all of the sins made by humanity then and in the future. That was his whole point of existence. After his death he paid their punishment. That is the reason people do not have to suffer in hell but are able to enter heaven. His suffering was both on earth and after his death in hell, the pain he felt has nothing to do with him seeking pleasure.
Logically, there was no point to that sacrifice, since the entire thing makes no damned sense at all.
First, we have to agree that only blood can cure sin. Since G-d made that restriction (as well as all of the sins), he could easily change it and accept instead, say, an honest repentance. An unwillingness to do so makes him either, 1) non-omnipotent, or 2) a vicious blood-thirty bastard. This latter, which is my personal view, is entirely consistent with the idea of everlasting torment dealt out for minor infractions of a counter-intuitive legal system... Only a monster could think that hell is justifiable.
Second, we have to agree that Jesus actually is G-d; a genuine and equal piece of the Godhead. This means that he cannot actually die. Which means that his suffering is an empty gesture, since execution is awful to humans precisely because of our mortal fears, not because it hurts! If Jesus knew that he was going to rise from the dead, and that his spirit could never perish anyhow since he was G-d, all he had to do was put up with the pain of crucifixion. I'd say that he made no sacrifice at all; he killed himself for his own sado-masochistic pleasure. When you wrote the rules, it's no fair crying about the punishment!
And anyway, as far as crucifixion goes, Jesus got off light; for many people it took days to die, and it came through slow asphyxiation or heatstroke...
Well, that's all my opinion, anyroad..... :angel:
-
God could have a sex, but there would be not much use for it really other than to relate to its creations.
But then he could only relate to one sex, right? ;) Why limit your god-concept like that? It's especially weird when you take into account the fact that we are all born female, and that the 'Y' chromosome is actually in some danger of disappearing in future... :laugh:
If you read my posts and actually understood them, I said God didn't need to have a gender. The gender thing was related to who could read and write at that time, that is men. I doubt God would be limited by gender at all, but that is what I said earlier so yeah. It would be easier to explain to a man during Abraham's time that God is a male, making them understand a God that really doesn't need a gender probably would confuse humans of that age. He doesn't have to reproduce like we do, he can create things just with thought. You basically didn't read what I wrote at all.
The idea of Logos arose from the lack of historical perspective on the Bible's evolution. That line in Genesis where G-d is saying "Let us make man in our image" is now interpreted (by Christians) to mean Jesus, but if you look at the Hebrew you find a plural noun (Elohim) is being used. The passage literally means that a council of gods is making the world! It is only later, when all of these various names for G-d were taken to mean the same entity, and especially in translation where the shades of meaning in Hebrew are lost, that one can believe something as awkward as Logos or Jesus being involved.
No I have never heard that line in Genesis meaning Jesus at all. That is just put there to tell humans that God made us to be like him in some respects. Man is not Jesus, but Jesus was a man physically. Logos is purely Catholic, nobody else uses the term really. It is like the shamrock being used to explain the trinity to the Irish, just a term to tell people that Jesus is a part of God (along with the Holy Spirit and the Father).
Funny, then, that Jesus said essentially nothing that was inconsistent with Pharisaic Judaism... And that he did not break a single Jewish Law. He was, however, guilty of sedition under Roman law, since Moshiach was seen as a political figure intended to throw off foreign domination...
Jesus followed God's laws, though many were just plain jealous of him. Him stopping people from stoning a prostitute to death and other things he did where he stood up for people were not seen as good by some. He called the Pharisees hypocrites, that didn't endear him to them at all. In Matthew 23 he goes off on the Pharisees actually.
http://www.pfo.org/pharisee.htm
Logically, there was no point to that sacrifice, since the entire thing makes no damned sense at all.
First, we have to agree that only blood can cure sin. Since G-d made that restriction (as well as all of the sins), he could easily change it and accept instead, say, an honest repentance. An unwillingness to do so makes him either, 1) non-omnipotent, or 2) a vicious blood-thirty bastard. This latter, which is my personal view, is entirely consistent with the idea of everlasting torment dealt out for minor infractions of a counter-intuitive legal system... Only a monster could think that hell is justifiable.
Second, we have to agree that Jesus actually is G-d; a genuine and equal piece of the Godhead. This means that he cannot actually die. Which means that his suffering is an empty gesture, since execution is awful to humans precisely because of our mortal fears, not because it hurts! If Jesus knew that he was going to rise from the dead, and that his spirit could never perish anyhow since he was G-d, all he had to do was put up with the pain of crucifixion. I'd say that he made no sacrifice at all; he killed himself for his own sado-masochistic pleasure. When you wrote the rules, it's no fair crying about the punishment!
And anyway, as far as crucifixion goes, Jesus got off light; for many people it took days to die, and it came through slow asphyxiation or heatstroke...
Well, that's all my opinion, anyroad..... :angel:
Jesus was in mortal form so he could die, souls exist beyond the mortal plane. That was the entire point of him being there, to die as a sacrifice. It is symbolic, that men used to sacrifice animals to God for centuries for sin. Then God sacrifices his son in mortal form, the God part of him is inside (soul/spirit sense) the mortal shell that is able to die. God can feel pain while in mortal form and can also feel pain when not in heaven, you are limiting God in that respect. God didn't have to sacrifice Jesus, it was a gesture to the people of that time who he felt were in dire need. The fact that God even went out of his way to make himself mortal, sacrifice himself and forgive sins is more than what he needed to do. We are his playthings, if you believe in an omnipotent God. We are just here for his entertainment imo.
There are several definitions of hell, one of which is just not being in the presence of God (others point to the eternal pain and torture thing). It doesn't matter what we think is justifiable when we don't make the rules. God doesn't cry about the punishment, really can't find anything of God shedding a tear. He is saddened that people do not follow his laws, but they get what they deserve in the end for not accepting his son (you can't follow the commandments and laws perfectly). God freely admits he is a jealous God, that is something you aren't supposed to be as a human. He doesn't have to obey any laws himself, he makes them. If you don't like it, then that is too fucking bad. If you don't even believe, then why even discuss it at all? The whole thing is meaningless if you don't have any faith.
He sent Jesus to follow the laws perfectly to set an example and be sacrificed. People seem to overrate the actual pain and torture of his death physically as reason why our sins were forgiven. The reason why we were forgiven is that he was sacrficed at all, he didn't have to do it. The sins of every human future or present were put onto Jesus before his death, that is why he was sent to hell and also why his own Father couldn't even look at him. God could have simply forgiven all sins without anyone believing or asking for forgiveness, but then there would be no conditions for that forgiveness. You have to ask humbly for his forgiveness, he doesn't have to give you anything at all. You get nothing for fence sitting or not believing, it isn't good enough.
-
God could have a sex, but there would be not much use for it really other than to relate to its creations.
But then he could only relate to one sex, right? ;) Why limit your god-concept like that? It's especially weird when you take into account the fact that we are all born female, and that the 'Y' chromosome is actually in some danger of disappearing in future... :laugh:
If you read my posts and actually understood them, I said God didn't need to have a gender. The gender thing was related to who could read and write at that time, that is men. I doubt God would be limited by gender at all, but that is what I said earlier so yeah. It would be easier to explain to a man during Abraham's time that God is a male, making them understand a God that really doesn't need a gender probably would confuse humans of that age. He doesn't have to reproduce like we do, he can create things just with thought. You basically didn't read what I wrote at all.
Yeah, but I was only thinking of the way that G-d would 'relate' to his creations. I mean, if we say that G-d chooses not to speak with women, and takes on a male aspect in speaking to men as a way to 'relate' to them, we are saying that G-d has masqueraded as a male, correct? Doing so is an effective support for the anti-feminist/'traditionalist' stance on male superiority. In effect, G-d condones female subjugation by choosing to appear male and reinforce patriarchy. We must not blind ourselves to the consequences of our beliefs...
The idea of Logos arose from the lack of historical perspective on the Bible's evolution. That line in Genesis where G-d is saying "Let us make man in our image" is now interpreted (by Christians) to mean Jesus, but if you look at the Hebrew you find a plural noun (Elohim) is being used. The passage literally means that a council of gods is making the world! It is only later, when all of these various names for G-d were taken to mean the same entity, and especially in translation where the shades of meaning in Hebrew are lost, that one can believe something as awkward as Logos or Jesus being involved.
No I have never heard that line in Genesis meaning Jesus at all. That is just put there to tell humans that God made us to be like him in some respects. Man is not Jesus, but Jesus was a man physically. Logos is purely Catholic, nobody else uses the term really. It is like the shamrock being used to explain the trinity to the Irish, just a term to tell people that Jesus is a part of God (along with the Holy Spirit and the Father).
What?! The line "Let us make man in our image" does, sure, tell humans that G-d made man in his image... but only if you interpret the word 'his' to be plural! You completely miss the point here. Unless you have more than one G-d present at the creation, then you have to assume that the "royal 'we'" is being used by G-d in this statement... and this despite the fact that the literary device did not exist in ancient Hebrew! It is an interpretation only possible in the vernacular. And anyway, I'm surprised that you've never heard that line referring to Jesus; it is a very common argument amongst trinitarians.
Logically, there was no point to that sacrifice, since the entire thing makes no damned sense at all.
First, we have to agree that only blood can cure sin. Since G-d made that restriction (as well as all of the sins), he could easily change it and accept instead, say, an honest repentance. An unwillingness to do so makes him either, 1) non-omnipotent, or 2) a vicious blood-thirty bastard. This latter, which is my personal view, is entirely consistent with the idea of everlasting torment dealt out for minor infractions of a counter-intuitive legal system... Only a monster could think that hell is justifiable.
Second, we have to agree that Jesus actually is G-d; a genuine and equal piece of the Godhead. This means that he cannot actually die. Which means that his suffering is an empty gesture, since execution is awful to humans precisely because of our mortal fears, not because it hurts! If Jesus knew that he was going to rise from the dead, and that his spirit could never perish anyhow since he was G-d, all he had to do was put up with the pain of crucifixion. I'd say that he made no sacrifice at all; he killed himself for his own sado-masochistic pleasure. When you wrote the rules, it's no fair crying about the punishment!
And anyway, as far as crucifixion goes, Jesus got off light; for many people it took days to die, and it came through slow asphyxiation or heatstroke...
Well, that's all my opinion, anyroad..... :angel:
Jesus was in mortal form so he could die, souls exist beyond the mortal plane.
First point: that was not a common belief at the time. The concept of an afterlife was first presented by the rabbis during the Roman occupation, as a way of reassuring people that there really was a point to keeping G-d's law in spite of their hardships, etc. The concept is not a Biblical one at all...
That was the entire point of him being there, to die as a sacrifice. It is symbolic, that men used to sacrifice animals to God for centuries for sin. Then God sacrifices his son in mortal form, the God part of him is inside (soul/spirit sense) the mortal shell that is able to die. God can feel pain while in mortal form and can also feel pain when not in heaven, you are limiting God in that respect.
Not at all; I understand that he would be able to feel pain in this scenario. My criticism is of the act of dying when you know that you cannot die. Jesus' death is an exaggerated form of a martyr's death, whose 'knowledge' of salvation allows him to die without regret. Whereas, on the other hand, a true sacrifice stands to lose something in the bargain! This death was simply G-d casting off a mortal shell that had allowed him to interact with people. No part of the god-essence was lost, G-d gave up nothing to appease G-d. The only purpose I can see to the affair was symbolic. And that has problems of its own... -->
God didn't have to sacrifice Jesus, it was a gesture to the people of that time who he felt were in dire need.
This can not have been a 'gesture to the people', if by 'people' you mean the Jews to whom Jesus addressed himself. Human sacrifice was specifically outlawed in Torah. The idea of a human taking the place of a sacrificial animal was sacrilegious to any observant Jew, then or now. Which means that G-d, in this case, would have chosen a symbolic message that was incomprehensible to his people! The notion only makes sense when you step out into the wider Roman world and preach to pagans. For them, the tale of a son's sacrifice was meaningful; for the Jews, it was a heresy.
The fact that God even went out of his way to make himself mortal, sacrifice himself and forgive sins is more than what he needed to do. We are his playthings, if you believe in an omnipotent God. We are just here for his entertainment imo.
I prefer to think that we live in a universe not controlled by such a petty monster. The idea of sin, and the justification of evil on the basis of theodicy, are simply offensive to my moral sensibilities.
There are several definitions of hell, one of which is just not being in the presence of God (others point to the eternal pain and torture thing).
That former is only a punishment if you believed in or respected G-d in the first place. If your understanding of the cosmos proves correct, I would choose hell out of spite...
It doesn't matter what we think is justifiable when we don't make the rules.
But we do! This denial of our human responsibility for our own lives is the worst part of the monotheistic tradition, in my opinion. It has allowed us to rape the earth without a hint of regret. I, for one, stand with Jean-Paul Sartre on this point: Philosophically speaking, it does not matter if G-d exists or not; but we must act as if he does not. Anything else is a denial of responsibility for our lives, and a refusal to deal with our lives in a truly ethical manner.
God doesn't cry about the punishment, really can't find anything of God shedding a tear. He is saddened that people do not follow his laws, but they get what they deserve in the end for not accepting his son (you can't follow the commandments and laws perfectly).
On that latter score, I strongly disagree. The Law was never meant to be impossible. That is a myth concocted by Paul of Tarsus to justify his heresies...
God freely admits he is a jealous God, that is something you aren't supposed to be as a human. He doesn't have to obey any laws himself, he makes them. If you don't like it, then that is too fucking bad.
Exactly why I would choose hell. I believe that G-d, as described strictly by orthodox Christianity, is an asshole.
If you don't even believe, then why even discuss it at all? The whole thing is meaningless if you don't have any faith.
Faith should never be left only to the faithful; you repeat a grave fallacy. We must not say things like, "only Jews can understand Jewish pain", or "only women can understand woman's subjugation", because in doing so we debase our own critical faculties. But to answer your question, I suppose that I discuss such things for three main reasons: 1) because I am critical of some aspects and features of religion and wish to hear their justifications, 2) because I am genuinely interested in what drives individuals to them in the first place, in how thinking gets turned towards rationalising them to fit the modern world, and 3) because I am a historian and take pleasure in topics that fall within my research interests. But getting back to the notion that it is 'meaningless' to discuss such things without faith, I'll quote Edward Said:Let us begin by accepting the notion that although there is an irreducible subjective core to human experience, this experience is also historical and secular, it is accessible to analysis and interpretation, and--centrally important--it is not exhausted by totalizing theories, not marked and limited by doctrinal or national lines, not confined once and for all to analytical constructs.
I simply do not think that it makes sense to build exclusions into any sphere of human thought, and as for faith, I cannot see why it is deserving of any special exemptions. It is an aspect of human thought and experience like any other, and is open to discussion by any and all concerned with the human experience.
-
You can't even see God in his full glory to even know if he was male or female. People get blinded for life or die at the sight of God. He tells them that he is the Father, so that makes him a male. God places men at the head of the household, wives are supposed to be submissive to their husbands as far as decision making goes. This is present all throughout the Bible, men as the leaders. That time period, men were normally the leaders anyways... regardless of religion.
God the father is referred to in the singular throughout the Old Testament, not plural. It is a monotheistic religion not a polytheistic one. The Us in the statment is the trinity (Father, son and holy ghost) and that man is made in the image of the trinity and not only God the father. In the very next verse it refers to God as him. Some believe the Us to be including the angels as God is conversing with them, others believe it is the trinity.
The afterlife is indeed a Christian invention and not something that is believed by a good portion of Jews. It isn't called the Bible without the New Testament, it is the Torah otherwise (that makes it Biblical lol). The problem is that an afterlife was by some taught by some rabbis during the years prior to Jesus being born. That made an afterlife something that is generally accepted at that time (Jesus was born during the Roman occupation).
Of course it is symbolic, Jesus is the lamb that had his blood spread over the doorway (Passover). That was a human sacrifice by God, not by people. Jesus wasn't killing himself, he let the Romans crucify him and did nothing to resist (even healed the ear of the guy who had his ear cut off by Peter). God again doesn't have to live by Jewish law, he isn't a human. Many Jews understood the message and still do today, despite your claims.
We don't make the rules if you believe in a God. Obviously you don't as you are incapable of even typing the name and you have to put a hyphen in the middle... G-d lol. You can't deny responsiblity for bad or immoral actions as a Christian, sins are there and not justified. I don't believe in predestination, I believe we are given free will and choose between right and wrong. If we choose wrong, we will "reap what we sow". That is we will have consequences. Humanity has raped the earth more recently than it did during the Dark Ages, we do it with out technology and religion has nothing to do with it.
The law wasn't MEANT to be impossible, just that supposedly only one person in history has kept all of God's laws perfectly during their lifetime (Jesus). That means people are incapable of keeping God's laws left to their own devices, they are bound to screw up somewhere as it is in their nature. It is extremely unlikely and almost impossible for someone to keep all of God's laws perfectly, there are too many and they are damn strict. In my statement I did not use the word impossible anyways lol... I said you can't follow them perfectly and I bet you can't no matter how hard you try (though I know you wouldn't try). That isn't impossible, that is extremely unlikely.
If you don't have faith and you don't believe then none of this matters. It is just like reading fables and myths. It isn't real to you, and nothing is going to change that. People without faith need a spiritual experience to make them see what they can't see themselves imo. It has nothing to do with rational thought and can go right against it. Faith is a delusion to those who don't have it.
The glory of God's presence is what makes heaven so great supposedly. If you don't respect God, then fine lol. I am sure you would choose hell, that doesn't mean hell is going to be a great place to be (Lake of Fire reference). If the Bible is correct, I hope you enjoy hell then. Atheists just believe we are going to be worm food, no afterlife and no soul. That is obviously a more probable outcome, but some people try to hedge their bets and fence sit. I would think that not being in the presence of God is a good deal like Earth anyways.
Of course God is a jealous, hateful, asshole in some respects. He created the universe and his creations are ridiculous, although he might laugh he is also probably bothered by how evil some humans are in how they live their lives. IMO God should just wipe us all off the earth and start over with some boring creations that are more capable of being perfect. Humans are far too flawed, and not just by God's laws either. Our flaws and problems have to be a source of his entertainment, perfect creations that he controls himself probably would be boring to him. I would think it is more entertaining to watch a bunch of humans killing eachother than a utopian feel good planet with nothing exciting going on. God feels free to shake the ant farm. I don't have to understand or like why he does so, I just have to deal with it.
-
It isn't called the Bible without the New Testament, it is the Torah otherwise (that makes it Biblical lol).
The "Old Testament" is pretty much a Christian invention, a completely different translation of the Tanakh than what the Jews read and use to this day.
We don't make the rules if you believe in a God. Obviously you don't as you are incapable of even typing the name and you have to put a hyphen in the middle... G-d lol.
Can't speak for Morthaur, but this is something Jewish people do frequently as well, and they most certainly believe in God. It's simply considered disrespectful to type out the name of the Almighty.
Anywho, just a couple factual pet peeves. Carry on.
-
He tells them that he is the Father, so that makes him a male. God places men at the head of the household, wives are supposed to be submissive to their husbands as far as decision making goes. This is present all throughout the Bible, men as the leaders.
Exactly what I was saying. And more evidence of the immoral and reactionary nature of orthodox Christianity, as far as I'm concerned!
God the father is referred to in the singular throughout the Old Testament, not plural. It is a monotheistic religion not a polytheistic one. The Us in the statment is the trinity (Father, son and holy ghost) and that man is made in the image of the trinity and not only God the father. In the very next verse it refers to God as him. Some believe the Us to be including the angels as God is conversing with them, others believe it is the trinity.
This is also what I was saying. And unless one wears blinders, it is patently false. The plural nouns for G-d were creatively reinterpreted by Christians, but that was not their original function, and it is not their function to-day for Jews. The trinity is mentioned nowhere in the Bible, and was not even commonly believed by early Christians; the idea did not become doctrinal until the fourth century, and was rejected by substantial numbers of Christians for centuries afterwards. (The so-called Arian Heresy was a much simpler and more elegant explanation. Had it not been rejected, vast numbers of Christian communities might not have eagerly converted to Islam--which has a much more logical, if flawed, conception of G-d.)
It isn't called the Bible without the New Testament, it is the Torah otherwise (that makes it Biblical lol).
I beg to differ: The expression 'Hebrew Bible' will be on the cover of dozens of copies at your local bookseller. The expression in Hebrew for the Bible is Tanakh, which is an acronym of sorts for the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. And Tanakh is always translated as 'Bible'. As for the term 'Torah', it has two meanings: either the Five Books of Moses or the entirety of Jewish Law, including Tanakh, Talmud, midrashim, and the oral tradition.
Of course it is symbolic, Jesus is the lamb that had his blood spread over the doorway (Passover). That was a human sacrifice by God, not by people. Jesus wasn't killing himself, he let the Romans crucify him and did nothing to resist (even healed the ear of the guy who had his ear cut off by Peter). God again doesn't have to live by Jewish law, he isn't a human. Many Jews understood the message and still do today, despite your claims.
Yes, but if his point in making such sacrifices was to--as you say--lead people to faith in him and love for his sacrifice, he chose a foolish way to go about it. The church of James in Jerusalem died out pretty quickly, since recruitment was hard and the end of the world was not forthcoming. In time, Christians forgot that they were following an apocalyptic prophet of doom (Paul) and re-interpreted scriptures in a way that allowed for the flourishing of Christianity in the Roman empire. Amongst Jews, however, conversion rates have always been minuscule, and predominantly amongst the uneducated.
We don't make the rules if you believe in a God.
Oh? Tell that to the Church Fathers, to Augustine and Aquinas, and to centuries of theologians who invented new concepts later considered doctrinal by Christians. Your own text here provides two examples, one ancient and one less so:You can't even see God in his full glory to even know if he was male or female. People get blinded for life or die at the sight of God.
So, ummm... Who made that shit up, then? If you want to take the texts literally, what about Jacob or Moses? Now here's the second:The afterlife is indeed a Christian invention and not something that is believed by a good portion of Jews. ... The problem is that an afterlife was by some taught by some rabbis during the years prior to Jesus being born. That made an afterlife something that is generally accepted at that time (Jesus was born during the Roman occupation).
Exactly. So if the afterlife is not mentioned in the faith Jesus grew up with, what makes one so certain that it was no made up along with the majority of Christian ideas? (Contrary to popular myth, Christianity has little in common with Judaism, and is more akin to eastern mystery cults such as that of Mithras, a Persian warrior god worshipped in the Roman legions.) Anyway, the point here is that some fellow either invented the belief out of whole cloth, or else 'discovered' it through creative re-interpretation of ancient manuscripts. And when it comes to the interpretation of documents, it generally holds that readings which take into account the culture of the original authors come closer to the meaning intended by those authors. Reading the Hebrew Bible through the culture of Greek and Roman paganism produced Christianity.
Obviously you don't as you are incapable of even typing the name and you have to put a hyphen in the middle... G-d lol.
The reason for this was kindly pointed out by Kiriana above. I hyphenate the English version of the ineffable name out of respect for Jewish tradition.
You can't deny responsiblity for bad or immoral actions as a Christian, sins are there and not justified. I don't believe in predestination, I believe we are given free will and choose between right and wrong. If we choose wrong, we will "reap what we sow". That is we will have consequences. Humanity has raped the earth more recently than it did during the Dark Ages, we do it with out technology and religion has nothing to do with it.
Oh, but it has everything to do with it! If the earth was given to man to do as he willed, as some argue, then that rape is religiously justified. If a more enlightened view is taken of those passages, one is left still with the apocalyptic eschatology of orthodox Christianity: i.e., if one is expecting the world to end when G-d is finished with it, then our damage is ultimately of little consequence. Beliefs of this sort--that G-d will end the world, or that he wills events into the form they take (theodicy)--are either a conscious or unconscious influence on the environmental views of millions of Christians.
Anyway, the main point one should take from this is that sin and immorality should not be synonymous. Many actions which are not sinful, or are even desirable according to religious doctrine, are deeply immoral. It is fortunate that some of these attitudes have gradually been effaced, such that we no longer murder wives who commit adultery, and can no longer sell our children into slavery. What you should take from that, however, is that morality has advanced in spite of religion, not because of it.
Even more important are the reasons that one chooses to be moral. If a man acts righteously because he fears damnation, he is not acting in a righteous manner; he is only feigning goodness. If, however, he analyses his options and chooses to act rightly because it is right, he has made a moral choice. It is the ability to make such decisions which makes us human. If we must act a certain way only because the parental authority instructs, we are no better than apes...
The law wasn't MEANT to be impossible, just that supposedly only one person in history has kept all of God's laws perfectly during their lifetime (Jesus). That means people are incapable of keeping God's laws left to their own devices, they are bound to screw up somewhere as it is in their nature. It is extremely unlikely and almost impossible for someone to keep all of God's laws perfectly, there are too many and they are damn strict. In my statement I did not use the word impossible anyways lol... I said you can't follow them perfectly and I bet you can't no matter how hard you try (though I know you wouldn't try). That isn't impossible, that is extremely unlikely.
I do, actually, try to keep most of those still possible to be kept (many are dependent upon the Temple culture in a vanished land). But you miss the point here. It is only later Christian doctrine--i.e., someone's new idea--that only Jesus could keep the Law fully. And in perfect honesty, one much see that he did not. Have you ever read out all of the Laws, or are you basing this on Sunday School reasoning? There are 613 mitzvoth, and I'm sure you can find one that Jesus missed if you look...
To get back to the point, though, we should recognise that the Law was, 1) not meant to be impossible, and 2) that it has been kept by hundreds of thousands of righteous Jews, who spent their entire lives immersed in those mitzvoth and intimately aware of the consequences of every action. The assertion you make would probably offend a lot of people who know that Law a whole lot better than the average Christian...
If you don't have faith and you don't believe then none of this matters. It is just like reading fables and myths. It isn't real to you, and nothing is going to change that. People without faith need a spiritual experience to make them see what they can't see themselves imo. It has nothing to do with rational thought and can go right against it. Faith is a delusion to those who don't have it.
And perhaps also to those who do. We could stimulate your brain and give you the sensation of a 'spiritual experience'. Would that make you worship science, then? Given the composition of our brains and the vagaries of our senses, no experience should be sufficient to induce belief in the improbable or otherwise impossible, unless the denial of that belief seems more incredible still. I'm with David Hume on this score:The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish."
If you don't respect God, then fine lol.
I can respect a good many versions or varieties of god, gods, or G-d.... but definitely not the Christian one.
... He created the universe and his creations are ridiculous, although he might laugh he is also probably bothered by how evil some humans are in how they live their lives. IMO God should just wipe us all off the earth and start over with some boring creations that are more capable of being perfect.
I think a greater and more noble challenge might be to understand and appreciate the sources of our flaws, and learn to live with them in a way that helps us to transcend our origins. Such an ideal might make for life a meaning that is worth truly living for.
As for G-d's creations, I wonder how the other worlds and their flawed inhabitants have fared... It seems awfully jealous of us humans to take the creator of the universe for ourselves, and ignores the hundreds of billions of visible galaxies. Much harder, I reckon, to believe that the rest of the universe was put there for us to look at once you've stared into the Hubble deep-field photos a few times... :laugh:
-
I really wanted to reply to Alex as well. However, a) he thinks one of my main purposes here is to attack him and more importantly b) there's no way I could have answered as well as morthaur.
So I will just go with the more generic :clap: :plus:
-
aaaaa too much text!
-
Mordok: Rofl I don't think that is one of your purposes at all, just you seem to disagree with me most of the time. Which is fine. That would be insanely egotistical of me to seriously think your purpose here has anything remotely to do with me.
Christianity is far from being the only religion that emphasizes men as the head of the household, pretty sure all of the monotheistic ones do. That was just the way it was back then, male dominated world for the most part regardless of religion.
The trinity is a Catholic convention used to describe how Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God the Father are linked and are essentially the same being in principle. The word trinity doesn't exist in the Bible but the Holy Spirit, the Son, and the Father are in the Bible. I agree that it doesn't really make total sense lol. Just a term to link the three that tries to simplify things, but in the end complicates them further.
The Jewish people I know call it the Torah, not the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament is a Christian invention due to the fact that there is a New Testament, so the previous chapters have to be considered as "Old". I don't hear Tanakh used as much as I have heard Torah from the few Jewish people I know in real life. Yes I know the Old Testament isn't exactly the same as the translation the Jews read.
God is used quite frequently by my friend Todd who is Jewish. He will never say Jehovah or Yahweh though from what I remember (I just did, oh noes).
The Bible is believed to be the word of God written in text by man (women weren't allowed to read and write back then). The rules were made by God, but interpreted by man. What happened to those rules afterwards as far as translations go, is the fault of men leading the church. Another reason why I hate organized religion, it is led by people with agendas who twist it to suit their own purposes. I am no Catholic or any other denomination for that matter.
As far as God being seen.
http://www.gotquestions.org/seen-God.html
http://scriptures.lds.org/tg/g/78
Their are multiple interpretations of that, and they do contradict eachother at first glance, when read out of context obviously. People pick and choose which to take literally and figuratively. Moses was put in the crevice of a rock so he didn't die from seeing God's glory (not God himself, but his glory aura or whatever). Jacob is seen by some to have wrestled an Angel and others as wrestling God himself.
All translations of what Jesus said point to an afterlife. The prophets Elijah and Elisha each ascended somewhere didn't they? That is seen as the afterlife, unless Jews do not believe they ascended.
Rape isn't religiously justified, that is just plain stupid. We have no idea as Christians when the end is coming and trying to predict it is a waste of time really. You treat others as you would want to be treated and you don't go around raping people and stoning adulterous people to death. Jesus spared an adulterous woman from being stoned to death obviously. The selling of children into slavery is Old Testament material and most do not take it seriously (other than some places in Africa). The New Testament does not endorse, condone or forbid slavery. It is basically neutral.
Just because man has free will, it doesn't mean that man is supposed to be a irresponsible jackass. That is not treating other people well at all, we all have to live in this world and destroying it ourselves is wrong. That is being inconsiderate and who the hell wants to be treated that way? Nobody that is why it is wrong in the New Testament.
You choose to be moral because you want to do the right thing by people. If you don't seriously have it in you to treat people like you would want to be treated, then you won't do it anyways. It is a personal choice regardless of religion, an inconsiderate asshole will not be truly changed by a religion imo. That person just will have to repent constantly until they learn from their mistakes gradually, religion doesn't have to play a role in this though. Karma or them reaping what they sow will bite them in the ass usually and force them to learn.
Name the laws that Jesus broke yourself. The Gospels are really the only things that Jesus did, and there isn't any law breaking there other than performing miracles on the Sabbath. Jesus criticized Jewish Law as it was changed and amended by the Jewish leaders just like Augustine and the rest of the Catholics twisted the words of Jesus. I would like to meet someone who never broke one of the many laws of the Jews. I am not saying it is impossible, just not likely. Much more likely they slipped up at least once in their lives.
I don't worship science, but I believe it works obviously. The spiritual experience I am referring to isn't drug induced anyways and isn't some manifestation of my own design. There is no actual miracle that happened for me as much as something that spoke to me when I was at my lowest point and encouraged me to find actual help instead of continuing to destroy myself. Very hard to explain and it was only auditory and is a singular instance that can't really be seen as me being Schizophrenic.
My opinion on what God should do with this planet isn't the same as saying that we as humans should do nothing to improve ourselves morally. You are making a gigantic jump in logic with that one. In fact we should want to be as close as possible to following God's laws before the actual end. The whole work in progress until the coming of Jesus thing. That is saying you should try to be better, not worse. The only way you change your life and stop from committing those sins is understanding what causes you to sin. When you find the root of your flaw, then you change that part. Assuming the world is going to end in your lifetime is very dumb to me as a Christian.
It ignores the visible galaxies because of how man would react to knowing there are lifeforms on other planets at the time when the word of God was revealed to them. That would have blown Abraham's mind. The Jewish faith is just as conflicted about the existence of aliens as the Christians are. Humans probably assumed that since God did not mention life on other planets, they had to be the only ones and thus the center of the universe in that regard. That is obviously wrong lol. I don't believe that humans can be expected with all of their flaws to correctly translate and interpret the words of a God over time. They will use it for their own benefit and pervert scriptures, which is something I believe to be very possible in EVERY religion not just Christianity. The longer it has been around, the more chances it gets to be fucked up by humans.
I would hope the probable creations on other planets are faring much better than we are with their flaws. Well with the current travel options, we won't be finding out ourselves any time soon if ever. Them reaching us is more likely if they were advanced enough to do so (I would welcome either malicious world ending aliens or the benevolent helping kind). That is something that is far out of my control, thus not worth worrying about. The nearest planet that is capable of supporting life (as we understand life) is so far away that it is basically impossible to travel to without exceeding the speed of light. That isn't very probable at all, basically impossible according to how we understand it currently.
-
aaaaa too much text!
not compatable with the ADHD mind.
-
This thread might be an ecumenical matter.
-
Christianity is far from being the only religion that emphasizes men as the head of the household, pretty sure all of the monotheistic ones do. That was just the way it was back then, male dominated world for the most part regardless of religion.
Sure, we can agree that patriarchy was 'just the way it was back then'. My problem is that people use a literal reading of the Bible to say that it is the way it ought to be to-day as well. If it ought to be that way to-day, because the Bible says so, then the Bible is an immoral book; but if women should not be subjugated to-day, then part of the Bible can be selectively ignored, which is an admission that it is not perfect. Which is it, then? Are women to be the property of men and the Bible true, or are women to be treated as human beings and the Bible thought wrong?
The Jewish people I know call it the Torah, not the Hebrew Bible.
Of course. As I said above, Torah is also shorthand for all of the Hebrew scriptures and holy works, all of the law and revelation. It is easy to use Torah to mean the Bible, but this is a convention: it is shorter and easier, and unmistakable in meaning for a Jew.
The Old Testament is a Christian invention due to the fact that there is a New Testament, so the previous chapters have to be considered as "Old".
The Tanakh was appropriated--stolen--by Christians and re-branded, and its meaning utterly changed. It became, in a sense, purely a historical justfication, as the Bible was read to be foretelling Jesus, even if it meant torturing passages out of all logical sense and making people into prophets who were not prophets (Daniel). The 'Old Testament' is part and parcel of the doctrine of supercession, whereby Christians become the 'new Israel' and the chosen of G-d, and Jews get the shaft... :grrr:
God is used quite frequently by my friend Todd who is Jewish. He will never say Jehovah or Yahweh though from what I remember (I just did, oh noes).
The decision not to spell out 'G-d' is a personal one. Jews do not have a single universal theology, and there is plenty of disagreement over individual practices. The use of a hyphen is extremely common amongst the Orthodox Jews, but much less so in other sects. Many Orthodox also place a hyphen in Lord (L-rd), but I have never adopted that one.
The rationale for each has to do with the permanency (or impermanency) of text. If a Torah scribe makes a mistake on a name of G-d, he cuts that piece from the scroll and buries it. If a name of G-d is written, the medium must be safeguarded and respected. Which means that on casual paper conversations or notes, the names of G-d probably should not be written down in the first place... According to Orthodox Jews, that is.
The Bible is believed to be the word of God written in text by man (women weren't allowed to read and write back then). The rules were made by God, but interpreted by man. What happened to those rules afterwards as far as translations go, is the fault of men leading the church. Another reason why I hate organized religion, it is led by people with agendas who twist it to suit their own purposes. I am no Catholic or any other denomination for that matter.
But here again you deal with changes in belief over time, which is the main current running through my arguments. That the Bible was 'written in text by man' is not even universally agreed, for example. And as interpretations of the text are also done by man, how can you be sure that a church in the USA can read the work better than, say, a Biblical scholar or an Orthodox rabbi? All of the standard interpretations available show the marks of one organised religion or other, or of academia. I tend to trust and emphasise the latter, meself.
As far as God being seen.
http://www.gotquestions.org/seen-God.html
http://scriptures.lds.org/tg/g/78
Their are multiple interpretations of that, and they do contradict eachother at first glance, when read out of context obviously. People pick and choose which to take literally and figuratively. Moses was put in the crevice of a rock so he didn't die from seeing God's glory (not God himself, but his glory aura or whatever). Jacob is seen by some to have wrestled an Angel and others as wrestling God himself.
The way a historian might approach them is through shifts in meaning over time. Jacob wrestled with G-d in the earliest version of the story. Once G-d had taken on more modern aspects, and was no longer believed to be like other gods, the interpretation changed to involve an angel. (It is worth noting, too, that older passages in Torah do not deny the existence of other gods, but only proscribes their worship.) The text itself remained the same but the culture changed around it, hence also the meaning. This is yet another area of Torah scholarship where the names used for G-d are important, as the G-d Moses spoke to and the G-d Jacob wrestled are not the same--Moses took his dictation from YHVH (*) and Jacob wrestled with El.
(* - A typical Orthodox Jew would not write those names out either; but then, I am no Orthodox Jew! I do so with YHVH because it is not a word in English, and the letters are only stand-ins for the Hebrew. I do the same for other transliterations as well. It would be difficult to work in textual criticism without using the English names in some fashion.)
All translations of what Jesus said point to an afterlife. The prophets Elijah and Elisha each ascended somewhere didn't they? That is seen as the afterlife, unless Jews do not believe they ascended.
Their 'ascent' to G-d's presence is not the same as an afterlife, though. Traditional Jews who believe in Moshiach and an 'afterlife' believe that our bodies moulder in the ground until the end of time. Then, G-d will raise everyone (physically!) from the dead, and the earth will be re-made into the paradise it originally was. Not quite the same thing, eh?
Rape isn't religiously justified, that is just plain stupid.
Point one: I was using rape figuratively, to refer to our industrial plunder of the earth's resources.
Point two: However, I disagree with you here; rape in the physical, sexual sense is clearly justified in the Bible (given the right circumstances). What of the sodomites who wanted to bugger Lot's houseguests? (Genesis 19) He offered his young daughters to the mob, to be gang-raped, and G-d thought that was a lovely gesture and rewarded him...
We have no idea as Christians when the end is coming and trying to predict it is a waste of time really.
I agree with you here, but many Christians do not. And it does not change the fact that, historically, predictions were an intimate part of scripture. Paul was convinced that the world would end in his own generation! Folks now re-interpret those passages in shameless ways, but there is no mistaking their original intent, especially when one places Paul in his historical and religious context.
The selling of children into slavery is Old Testament material and most do not take it seriously (other than some places in Africa). The New Testament does not endorse, condone or forbid slavery. It is basically neutral.
Bullshit. Paul says that slaves should not be freed, and the Christian Bible thereby directly condones the continuation of slavery as an institution. Note the following--- 1 Corinthians: slaves should not desire their freedom. Ephesians: slaves must obey their masters just as they do Christ. Colossians: Paul equates G-d with a slave-owner. Titus: slaves must please and obey their masters. Philemon: Paul returns a slave to his 'rightful owner'...
You choose to be moral because you want to do the right thing by people. If you don't seriously have it in you to treat people like you would want to be treated, then you won't do it anyways. It is a personal choice regardless of religion, an inconsiderate asshole will not be truly changed by a religion imo. That person just will have to repent constantly until they learn from their mistakes gradually, religion doesn't have to play a role in this though. Karma or them reaping what they sow will bite them in the ass usually and force them to learn.
Or, they can cloak themselves in religion and be assholes to other people, like, umm, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson... My problem is not with some people just being natural asses, but with the use of religion to justify that behaviour.
Name the laws that Jesus broke yourself. The Gospels are really the only things that Jesus did, and there isn't any law breaking there other than performing miracles on the Sabbath.
Okay, I'll play ball. Here are the questionable issues I could think of this morning:
1. A man must have a reverent fear of his father. If Jesus was, as Christians say, fully man and fully G-d, he would need to fear... himself?!
2. And, there is another commandment, to fear G-d himself... What would Jesus do here?
3. When a man reaches maturity, he is obliged to marry and sire children. Where are Jesus' wife and kids?
4. It is forbidden to curse one's father, and one can read Jesus' "Why have you forsaken me?" as a curse, since the statement is apparently false and demonstrates only Jesus'--very human--loss of faith in the moment of death.
5. One is not to inflict suffering on any widow, and it could be argued that having your mother witness your bloody execution is inflicting great suffering!
6. It is not permitted to establish anything as certain by the word of one witness. And yet, the apostles were supposed to go out and convert people to a heretical form of Judaism on the basis of their own word... to teach people to abandon the Law, on their word alone...
7. It is not permitted to add any new laws. But the 'golden rule' and the beatitudes, for example, are not in Torah.
8. And lastly, there is a whole raft of laws against the practicing of miracles!
I don't worship science, but I believe it works obviously. The spiritual experience I am referring to isn't drug induced anyways and isn't some manifestation of my own design. There is no actual miracle that happened for me as much as something that spoke to me when I was at my lowest point and encouraged me to find actual help instead of continuing to destroy myself. Very hard to explain and it was only auditory and is a singular instance that can't really be seen as me being Schizophrenic.
Believing that science works, and ignoring the implications of its work, is a very common state of affairs amongst Christians. One potentially troublesome area is the cognitive sciences & neurology, which is what I was referring to before. If there are natural explanations for the religious experiences people have, which can be replicated by stimulating parts of the brain, what does this say about G-d? Anything? Anyroad... there are plenty of books and articles on the subject, and if you're interested I can recommend some titles.
My opinion on what God should do with this planet isn't the same as saying that we as humans should do nothing to improve ourselves morally. You are making a gigantic jump in logic with that one. In fact we should want to be as close as possible to following God's laws before the actual end. The whole work in progress until the coming of Jesus thing. That is saying you should try to be better, not worse.
It is not my leap of logic, but the sort of thing that flies from the mouths of too damned many fundamentalist preachers. As for trying to improve the world, that seems to me closer to the Jewish ideal of Tikkun Olam than to Bible-thumping Christian fundamentalism... But maybe I'm just getting cynical and bitter! :laugh:
The only way you change your life and stop from committing those sins is understanding what causes you to sin. When you find the root of your flaw, then you change that part. Assuming the world is going to end in your lifetime is very dumb to me as a Christian.
I wish more Christians agreed with you here.
-
aaaaa too much text!
not compatable with the ADHD mind.
not indeedy.
This thread might be an ecumenical matter.
:laugh: :plus:
-
aaaaa too much text!
not compatable with the ADHD mind.
not indeedy.
This thread might be an ecumenical matter.
:laugh: :plus:
OMG, have they already written a thesis? it's like they are being graded or something.
-
as you can see the fuckers wrote a whole book.
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
:plus:
:LMAO:
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
:plus:
:LMAO:
Ahh, shit!
I that's hilarious!
Plussing up Vortex for that one, too.
-
god is totally for boy/boy love. :green:
-
aaaaa too much text!
:agreed:
Subject is interesting, but my poor mind
can't take that all on the computer.
-
Sure, we can agree that patriarchy was 'just the way it was back then'. My problem is that people use a literal reading of the Bible to say that it is the way it ought to be to-day as well. If it ought to be that way to-day, because the Bible says so, then the Bible is an immoral book; but if women should not be subjugated to-day, then part of the Bible can be selectively ignored, which is an admission that it is not perfect. Which is it, then? Are women to be the property of men and the Bible true, or are women to be treated as human beings and the Bible thought wrong?
Yes the Bible is wrong in that regard. My mother who claims to be a extremely loyal Christian even disagrees, and when I confronted her about her role in the household and what her Bible says about it recently she cried and couldn't muster an argument. Especially about women speaking in church and such. Selectively ignoring the Bible does say it is imperfect, which I can obviously see. It was written by humans that supposedly received word from God, I take whatever positives I can from that word. You are assuming I am a hugely literal Christian here and not open to other spiritual and religious ideas.
Of course. As I said above, Torah is also shorthand for all of the Hebrew scriptures and holy works, all of the law and revelation. It is easy to use Torah to mean the Bible, but this is a convention: it is shorter and easier, and unmistakable in meaning for a Jew.
I only hear Torah from the Jews I have known, and I have known plenty. Hell my neighbors and good friends from age 5 onwards were Jews and all I ever heard them say is Torah. I went to Boy Scouts with those same friends and it was held at a Synagogue (Jewish community center) and all they used was Torah from what I heard. I only got to Life, while one of my friends got Eagle scout actually.
The Tanakh was appropriated--stolen--by Christians and re-branded, and its meaning utterly changed. It became, in a sense, purely a historical justfication, as the Bible was read to be foretelling Jesus, even if it meant torturing passages out of all logical sense and making people into prophets who were not prophets (Daniel). The 'Old Testament' is part and parcel of the doctrine of supercession, whereby Christians become the 'new Israel' and the chosen of G-d, and Jews get the shaft... :grrr:
There is still place in the Kingdom of God for Jews as far as Christ is concerned. They are still subject to the same laws as before anyways, but their place is the same. Whether they become Messianic Jews or not is another story, that would just make things a bit easier on them as far as being forgiven is concerned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism
The decision not to spell out 'G-d' is a personal one. Jews do not have a single universal theology, and there is plenty of disagreement over individual practices. The use of a hyphen is extremely common amongst the Orthodox Jews, but much less so in other sects. Many Orthodox also place a hyphen in Lord (L-rd), but I have never adopted that one.
The rationale for each has to do with the permanency (or impermanency) of text. If a Torah scribe makes a mistake on a name of G-d, he cuts that piece from the scroll and buries it. If a name of G-d is written, the medium must be safeguarded and respected. Which means that on casual paper conversations or notes, the names of G-d probably should not be written down in the first place... According to Orthodox Jews, that is.
Why do you do it if you aren't even a Jew? You admittedly are no Orthodox Jew. I see people use J-sus even. When I was fully atheist I used Xian and Xianity or Xtian or Xtianity quite a bit myself. I never put a hyphen though in anything.
But here again you deal with changes in belief over time, which is the main current running through my arguments. That the Bible was 'written in text by man' is not even universally agreed, for example. And as interpretations of the text are also done by man, how can you be sure that a church in the USA can read the work better than, say, a Biblical scholar or an Orthodox rabbi? All of the standard interpretations available show the marks of one organised religion or other, or of academia. I tend to trust and emphasise the latter, meself.
They are all crap and subject to human error. The more times people get to read over things like the Bible, the more literal and figurative interpretations can be made from it. That basically makes it crap to me. There is no part of the Bible that does not actually have a human author. Either being passed down by word of mouth or written actually by a man. Doing that leads to change.
The way a historian might approach them is through shifts in meaning over time. Jacob wrestled with G-d in the earliest version of the story. Once G-d had taken on more modern aspects, and was no longer believed to be like other gods, the interpretation changed to involve an angel. (It is worth noting, too, that older passages in Torah do not deny the existence of other gods, but only proscribes their worship.) The text itself remained the same but the culture changed around it, hence also the meaning. This is yet another area of Torah scholarship where the names used for G-d are important, as the G-d Moses spoke to and the G-d Jacob wrestled are not the same--Moses took his dictation from YHVH (*) and Jacob wrestled with El.
(* - A typical Orthodox Jew would not write those names out either; but then, I am no Orthodox Jew! I do so with YHVH because it is not a word in English, and the letters are only stand-ins for the Hebrew. I do the same for other transliterations as well. It would be difficult to work in textual criticism without using the English names in some fashion.)
Yes changes over time is something a serious believer who wants to take everything literally would be concerned with. Where do I say that the Bible itself was handwritten by God and has never been changed by jackass humans? You are no Orthodox Jew and yet you put hyphens in names.
Their 'ascent' to G-d's presence is not the same as an afterlife, though. Traditional Jews who believe in Moshiach and an 'afterlife' believe that our bodies moulder in the ground until the end of time. Then, G-d will raise everyone (physically!) from the dead, and the earth will be re-made into the paradise it originally was. Not quite the same thing, eh?
So are you saying they ceased to exist after they ascended to wherever God and the angels reside? I always assumed the angels that are present in some places in the Bible were right where God was most of the time. That would be heaven but it was without an actual name in the Old Testament era.
Point one: I was using rape figuratively, to refer to our industrial plunder of the earth's resources.
Point two: However, I disagree with you here; rape in the physical, sexual sense is clearly justified in the Bible (given the right circumstances). What of the sodomites who wanted to bugger Lot's houseguests? (Genesis 19) He offered his young daughters to the mob, to be gang-raped, and G-d thought that was a lovely gesture and rewarded him...
That is the Old Testament, but yes that is pretty fucked up. See that is sex outside of marriage and thus adultery. One of many places where the Bible contradicts itself.
I agree with you here, but many Christians do not. And it does not change the fact that, historically, predictions were an intimate part of scripture. Paul was convinced that the world would end in his own generation! Folks now re-interpret those passages in shameless ways, but there is no mistaking their original intent, especially when one places Paul in his historical and religious context.
]Bullshit. Paul says that slaves should not be freed, and the Christian Bible thereby directly condones the continuation of slavery as an institution. Note the following--- 1 Corinthians: slaves should not desire their freedom. Ephesians: slaves must obey their masters just as they do Christ. Colossians: Paul equates G-d with a slave-owner. Titus: slaves must please and obey their masters. Philemon: Paul returns a slave to his 'rightful owner'...
Paul equates sin as the slave owner and humans as slaves to sin. That is where slavery is in the New Testament. The opposite ends up as the human is now slave to God and his laws, freeing you from the slavery of sin but making you now a slave to God.
http://www.xenos.org/teachings/topical/wisdom/gary/wisdom-2.htm
More detailed examples on slavery in the New Testament. Mostly by Paul and has you taking him out of context.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
How Paul didn't even comment on whether slavery was actually wrong when the subject literally came to light. Him not discussing the immorality of slave owning could be determined as condoning it.
Or, they can cloak themselves in religion and be assholes to other people, like, umm, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson... My problem is not with some people just being natural asses, but with the use of religion to justify that behaviour.
How does it justify the behaviour if they are not supposed to be the first to cast stones or to tell someone of the speck in their eye when they have a plank in their own? That is just self righteous asshole preachers judging people and condemning them to hell, when they themselves have their own sins that are probably ignored and most likely will make them suffer the same fate. They think they are correcting their brother, but they are just being judgemental pricks. I dislike such people and see them as those who want to do God's job themselves. That isn't biblical imo.
Okay, I'll play ball. Here are the questionable issues I could think of this morning:
1. A man must have a reverent fear of his father. If Jesus was, as Christians say, fully man and fully G-d, he would need to fear... himself?!
2. And, there is another commandment, to fear G-d himself... What would Jesus do here?
3. When a man reaches maturity, he is obliged to marry and sire children. Where are Jesus' wife and kids?
4. It is forbidden to curse one's father, and one can read Jesus' "Why have you forsaken me?" as a curse, since the statement is apparently false and demonstrates only Jesus'--very human--loss of faith in the moment of death.
5. One is not to inflict suffering on any widow, and it could be argued that having your mother witness your bloody execution is inflicting great suffering!
6. It is not permitted to establish anything as certain by the word of one witness. And yet, the apostles were supposed to go out and convert people to a heretical form of Judaism on the basis of their own word... to teach people to abandon the Law, on their word alone...
7. It is not permitted to add any new laws. But the 'golden rule' and the beatitudes, for example, are not in Torah.
8. And lastly, there is a whole raft of laws against the practicing of miracles!
1. He is God so he wouldn't naturally have to fear himself, his spirit is in human form just for the purpose of sacrifice.
2. Fearing his literal Father is not possible as he was a virgin birth as far as being a human goes. He always tells people to fear God though, but not himself from what I have read.
3. Jesus was to be sacrificed, his role wasn't to have kids. It was no sin for him to not procreate as far as I see it. That was not his purpose.
4. That wasn't a curse, it was him feeling the pain and anguish as his Father could no longer look upon him. He was flooded with all the sins of the world at that moment and God the father could no longer look at him during that moment. This is very commonly known and the opposing viewpoint of someone like my father before he was saved. Quite hilarious.
5. It was not his choice to have his mother there at his crucifixion. She chose to show up and I am not sure if she was a widow to Joseph at that time.
6. They are second hand witnesses to things said by Jesus, who was to them the son of God. The law wasn't to be totally abandoned anyways.
7. The golden rule and the beatitudes are mostly simplifications of God's already established laws. They really aren't anything totally new in that regard. Christians also believe this is coming from the mouth of the Messiah and not a mere prophet, so it is law.
8. God can do miracles whenever he wants actually, humans who aren't the actual son of God I would think were still subject to this law. I can see the problem here and it is pretty clear though. It basically deals with you not seeing Jesus as a part of God and as a mere man only. He doesn't reach all of the prophecies either if you want to be technical as far as being the Messiah. Very surprised you didn't go there.
Believing that science works, and ignoring the implications of its work, is a very common state of affairs amongst Christians. One potentially troublesome area is the cognitive sciences & neurology, which is what I was referring to before. If there are natural explanations for the religious experiences people have, which can be replicated by stimulating parts of the brain, what does this say about G-d? Anything? Anyroad... there are plenty of books and articles on the subject, and if you're interested I can recommend some titles.
I am sure man can simulate any sensation that is available to a human naturally. I can't naturally explain what I heard as there was nothing in the room visible to me and I had no stereo equipment on or anything. I actually looked around in paranoia afterwards, searched outside my apartment and everything. Thought someone piped in something lol. I can tell the difference between talking to myself and hearing music in my head and actually hearing things in the real world.
It is not my leap of logic, but the sort of thing that flies from the mouths of too damned many fundamentalist preachers. As for trying to improve the world, that seems to me closer to the Jewish ideal of Tikkun Olam than to Bible-thumping Christian fundamentalism... But maybe I'm just getting cynical and bitter! :laugh:
I haven't heard anyone say that we should just be jackasses and pollute the world. Maybe that is due to me not taking every tele-evangelist seriously at all. Really no reason to listen to some whores of money.
I wish more Christians agreed with you here.
No shit that stuff is getting annoying to me. If the world ends then I have no control over it myself. I just do my part to not destroy the earth myself via a more gradual manner. I wouldn't mind killing off everything though but that is a sick personal goal not related to religion.
-
Yes the Bible is wrong in that regard. My mother who claims to be a extremely loyal Christian even disagrees, and when I confronted her about her role in the household and what her Bible says about it recently she cried and couldn't muster an argument. Especially about women speaking in church and such. Selectively ignoring the Bible does say it is imperfect, which I can obviously see. It was written by humans that supposedly received word from God, I take whatever positives I can from that word. You are assuming I am a hugely literal Christian here and not open to other spiritual and religious ideas.
Having conceded this point, I would be interested to see you go back and read your previous posts in this thread. You've made several claims based on what is written in the bible. Do you still maintain that they're all correct?
More importantly, if you believe some is definitely wrong, how do you determine what is and what isn't?
-
The OP wanted to know what the Bible said about homosexuality from what I understand. What the Bible says is one thing, whether it is all something I can agree with or not is a different subject entirely. I look at the Bible and see what things I deem as positive and learn from those mainly. I will have to look back and see where I said something is 100% correct, that is a matter of opinion in most cases anyways.
My first response was "They leave out woman on woman because they used to not allow women to read period. Why write to an audience you are forbidding to read? It makes it easier to oppress them that way." That basically infers that men wrote the Bible, which is OBVIOUS as all hell because other than a few instances God doesn't claim to actually touch anything and leave physical words. It is all inspired by God and written down by humans.
Doesn't really tell you that I think the Bible is correct all the time, does it? The OP wanted an argument based on literal interpretation of the Bible and I just gave what I thought literally it meant in relation to homosexuality. Another argument was over whether children were educated on what is right or wrong and if that meant that women were taught to read and write. Obviously women were not taught or encouraged to read or write back then by multiple cultures.
After a while the thread degenerated away from the original topic and I just gave some of my opinions on the Bible. Basically on how I interpret it myself, not whether it is "correct" or not. I have heard countless interpretations anyways, some of them border on the insane while others are plain hilarious. The whole God allowing girl on girl sex while disallowing man on man is one of many hilarious examples.
-
aaaaa too much text!
not compatable with the ADHD mind.
not indeedy.
OMG, have they already written a thesis? it's like they are being graded or something.
as you can see the fuckers wrote a whole book.
Is it not possible to have a serious discussion here, or do they all need to devolve into witty one-liners and social small-talk? Maybe I'm on the wrong fucking Web site.... ???
-
Yes the Bible is wrong in that regard. My mother who claims to be a extremely loyal Christian even disagrees, and when I confronted her about her role in the household and what her Bible says about it recently she cried and couldn't muster an argument. Especially about women speaking in church and such. Selectively ignoring the Bible does say it is imperfect, which I can obviously see. It was written by humans that supposedly received word from God, I take whatever positives I can from that word. You are assuming I am a hugely literal Christian here and not open to other spiritual and religious ideas.
I am not assuming that, but I am saying that it is logically inconsistent to assert that the Bible is true, and then critique its contents selectively as culture changes. How can you know that any of it is true, when the gradual evolution of human society slowly eats away at its neolithic and barbarous contents? This is not to say that the work is without merit, but the assertion that it is the 'word of G-d' and strong faith based upon its contents seems hardly tenable given the criticism that a liberal Christianity such as yours is willing to give it. The fundamentalists are at least more consistent (though ridiculous to an extreme).
Edit: I want to underline mordok's question to you again. We are not questioning the fact that you do not have total faith in all of the text; it is clear that you are not a fundamentalist. The point, rather, is how you make the distinction between one passage's truth and another falsity? What is your basis for such decisions? And more importantly, why do you think there is undeniable truth in any part of the book, when some things can plainly be conceded as errors? Why accept an absurd notion like G-d's incarnation in flesh when you reject other parts of scripture? What makes any of it true for you?
There is still place in the Kingdom of God for Jews as far as Christ is concerned. They are still subject to the same laws as before anyways, but their place is the same. Whether they become Messianic Jews or not is another story, that would just make things a bit easier on them as far as being forgiven is concerned.
Messianic Judaism seems to me a misguided return to the kind of faith the church of James in Jerusalem once professed, only without the rationale of that earlier entity. Messianic Judaism died out when the world's end proved elusive, and its rebirth is far more a movement within Christianity than a genuine sect of Judaism.
Why do you do it if you aren't even a Jew? You admittedly are no Orthodox Jew.
I never said that I wasn't Jewish. I am. Although my only temple affiliation was Conservative, I identify as and with the Reconstructionist movement.
They [interpretations of the Bible] are all crap and subject to human error. The more times people get to read over things like the Bible, the more literal and figurative interpretations can be made from it. That basically makes it crap to me. There is no part of the Bible that does not actually have a human author. Either being passed down by word of mouth or written actually by a man. Doing that leads to change.
This leads inevitably back to the question above: Why attribute any of it to G-d and assume its 'truth'? Why accept things, like the Christ hypothesis, that contradict even the culture that inspired it, much less common sense and reason? :) Why believe that humans need a divine 'saviour' in the first place?
Their 'ascent' to G-d's presence is not the same as an afterlife, though. Traditional Jews who believe in Moshiach and an 'afterlife' believe that our bodies moulder in the ground until the end of time. Then, G-d will raise everyone (physically!) from the dead, and the earth will be re-made into the paradise it originally was. Not quite the same thing, eh?
So are you saying they ceased to exist after they ascended to wherever God and the angels reside? I always assumed the angels that are present in some places in the Bible were right where God was most of the time. That would be heaven but it was without an actual name in the Old Testament era.
Only inasmuch as it is the theoretical abode of G-d and the heavenly host, etc. That heaven was not conceived as a destination for Man. For example, it is widely believed that Elijah will return to earth to announce the coming of Moshiach. In a sense, then, he is seen as waiting there, in G-d's presence, to come back here and announce the impending 'restoration' of the earth to G-d's original design (an earthly paradise), into which the faithful dead would then awaken.
Point two: However, I disagree with you here; rape in the physical, sexual sense is clearly justified in the Bible (given the right circumstances). What of the sodomites who wanted to bugger Lot's houseguests? (Genesis 19) He offered his young daughters to the mob, to be gang-raped, and G-d thought that was a lovely gesture and rewarded him...
That is the Old Testament, but yes that is pretty fucked up. See that is sex outside of marriage and thus adultery. One of many places where the Bible contradicts itself.
But it isn't contradictory in arguing that women have no rights, etc.! And adultery/polygamy was certainly no crime for those living before the giving of the Law; just look at Abraham... ;D
...More detailed examples on slavery in the New Testament. Mostly by Paul and has you taking him out of context.... How Paul didn't even comment on whether slavery was actually wrong when the subject literally came to light. Him not discussing the immorality of slave owning could be determined as condoning it.
Exactly so. Slavery is just a given to Paul; just a natural way of life. The unquestioning acceptance of slavery rings out as an endorsement and justification to my ears... especially when taken in context (e.g., metaphorically making all believers into slaves).
1. He is God so he wouldn't naturally have to fear himself, his spirit is in human form just for the purpose of sacrifice.
*ahem* What about "true G-d and true Man"? Jesus' humanity, as a matter of dogma, is not considered to be a mere form, but a genuine incarnation, making him subject to all of the same aspects of humanity as the rest of us.
2. Fearing his literal Father is not possible as he was a virgin birth as far as being a human goes. He always tells people to fear God though, but not himself from what I have read.
What does his mother have to do with fearing his father? If he called G-d his father ("abba"), then the same rule applies, no? ;D
3. Jesus was to be sacrificed, his role wasn't to have kids. It was no sin for him to not procreate as far as I see it. That was not his purpose.
You are making a doctrinal justification for breaking one of the mitzvoth; if this was his 'purpose, then his purpose did not involve keeping the Law perfectly, did it?
4. That wasn't a curse, it was him feeling the pain and anguish as his Father could no longer look upon him. He was flooded with all the sins of the world at that moment and God the father could no longer look at him during that moment...
Seems to me more likely that your position is a later theological justification for that quote in the death story.
5. It was not his choice to have his mother there at his crucifixion. She chose to show up and I am not sure if she was a widow to Joseph at that time.
I thought I recalled him dying when Jesus was relatively young, or at least before his mission. But I'm too lazy now to confirm it!
6. They are second hand witnesses to things said by Jesus, who was to them the son of God. The law wasn't to be totally abandoned anyways.
Tell that to Paul, who argued rather the reverse!
7. The golden rule and the beatitudes are mostly simplifications of God's already established laws. They really aren't anything totally new in that regard. Christians also believe this is coming from the mouth of the Messiah and not a mere prophet, so it is law.
Which means it is Christian doctrine, nothing more; it is part-and-parcel of supercessionist theology to take a concept like the Law, which was Jewish, and add things to it on the basis of belief that one man was somehow also G-d. And I'm sorry, but the notion of 'turning the other cheek' is definitely not present in Judaism. Quite the opposite, in fact! ;)
8. God can do miracles whenever he wants actually, humans who aren't the actual son of God I would think were still subject to this law. I can see the problem here and it is pretty clear though. It basically deals with you not seeing Jesus as a part of God and as a mere man only. He doesn't reach all of the prophecies either if you want to be technical as far as being the Messiah. Very surprised you didn't go there.
Exactly so. I do not even think there is justification based on the synoptic gospels for believing in Jesus' divinity. Really, I do not think there is any justification, coming from the pre-Pauline Scriptures and the history, for believing that a man could be also G-d. But if you read the Bible through pagan eyes, such things become more possible.
I am sure man can simulate any sensation that is available to a human naturally.
But I am not taking about a 'simulation', but rather duplication of the same effects and feelings. How is one to tell the difference between an 'experience of G-d' that is caused by a naturally-occurring brain misfire and one triggered by an experimental misfire?
I can tell the difference between talking to myself and hearing music in my head and actually hearing things in the real world.
It is of the essence of delusion to make such distinctions. We humans cannot, in fact, determine the genuine reality of any of our sensations, we can only go on the basis of neurological impulses. I have no way of knowing that my childhood memory of seeing ghostly images on the Queen Mary is indicative of real apparitions or a youthful and imaginative brain misfiring. When proof is absent, I fall back on Hume's maxim.
-
aaaaa too much text!
not compatable with the ADHD mind.
not indeedy.
OMG, have they already written a thesis? it's like they are being graded or something.
as you can see the fuckers wrote a whole book.
Is it not possible to have a serious discussion here, or do they all need to devolve into witty one-liners and social small-talk? Maybe I'm on the wrong fucking Web site.... ???
maybe you are if you get upset by my bitching. :laugh: i feel like i'm missing out is all, cuz i can't read long posts like that. i hate debates anyway. but nevermind me, i was just postwhoring. :P
-
aaaaa too much text!
not compatable with the ADHD mind.
not indeedy.
OMG, have they already written a thesis? it's like they are being graded or something.
as you can see the fuckers wrote a whole book.
Is it not possible to have a serious discussion here, or do they all need to devolve into witty one-liners and social small-talk? Maybe I'm on the wrong fucking Web site.... ???
Yes, it seems the majority of posts do devolve. A few manage to get back on track. However, the key thing I've found about this place is that all posts are welcome. Some may just not garner as wide an audience willing to take part.
I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying your posts and discussions and am glad you are here.
-
indeed. all posts are welcome. even the ones critizing other posts. :P
-
aaaaa too much text!
not compatable with the ADHD mind.
not indeedy.
OMG, have they already written a thesis? it's like they are being graded or something.
as you can see the fuckers wrote a whole book.
Is it not possible to have a serious discussion here, or do they all need to devolve into witty one-liners and social small-talk? Maybe I'm on the wrong fucking Web site.... ???
Actually, I'm rather enjoying this debate. I'd join in, but it'd involve a lot of following Morthaur around saying "yeah, that!" which isn't all that entertaining really.
I also think it's pretty common for folks around here to jump in with random comments. At least it keeps the thread bumped up! And sometimes the comments do end up leading to an interesting side debate. All part of the fun, really. But then again, maybe I have a perverse idea of "fun"
-
i like your idea of fun.
but i also have another idea... :eyebrows:
-
I'm just waiting for the non-fiction version of the Bible to come out.
-
maybe you are if you get upset by my bitching. :laugh: i feel like i'm missing out is all, cuz i can't read long posts like that. i hate debates anyway. but nevermind me, i was just postwhoring. :P
Oh, I'm not upset, just genuinely curious / concerned! If my lengthy rambles are not welcome to the community at large, I do no-one any favours by posting them! :laugh: My idea of fun is not everyone's cup o' tea, after all.
Yes, it seems the majority of posts do devolve. A few manage to get back on track. However, the key thing I've found about this place is that all posts are welcome. Some may just not garner as wide an audience willing to take part.
I, for one, am thoroughly enjoying your posts and discussions and am glad you are here.
Good point. And merci beaucoup!
Actually, I'm rather enjoying this debate. I'd join in, but it'd involve a lot of following Morthaur around saying "yeah, that!" which isn't all that entertaining really.
I also think it's pretty common for folks around here to jump in with random comments. At least it keeps the thread bumped up! And sometimes the comments do end up leading to an interesting side debate. All part of the fun, really. But then again, maybe I have a perverse idea of "fun"
Also good points! Thanks to all for the feedback.
-
it takes some heavy doody suckiness in a post to not be welcome here. :laugh: like a lá ATOMIK PSYCHO.
-
Interesting random factoids, just for fun---
Him stopping people from stoning a prostitute to death and other things he did where he stood up for people were not seen as good by some.
That first is a reference to a passage in John 7, and it is worth noting that this story was not in early manuscripts of the Christian Bible, but was in fact inserted there by a later mediaeval scribe.
... It is like the shamrock being used to explain the trinity to the Irish, just a term to tell people that Jesus is a part of God (along with the Holy Spirit and the Father).
It is worth also noting that the most clear statement of trinitarianism in the Bible, found around 1 John 5:7, exists in no manuscript before the sixteenth century. It has fortunately been corrected in many new editions, such as the NIV, but is still reprinted in many popular versions of the Christian Bible to-day. (The inserted text runs "There are three that testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.")
There are plenty of examples of this kind of chicanery, as well as countless minor deviations accumulated through copyist error. The King James Bible is absolutely stuffed with such mistakes, and it is the Bible of choice for many modern churches. Meaning, the basic theology of modern denominations may still be justified on the basis of fraudulent additions...
-
aaaaa too much text!
not compatable with the ADHD mind.
not indeedy.
OMG, have they already written a thesis? it's like they are being graded or something.
as you can see the fuckers wrote a whole book.
Is it not possible to have a serious discussion here, or do they all need to devolve into witty one-liners and social small-talk? Maybe I'm on the wrong fucking Web site.... ???
maybe, if you are a prude.
we were just taking the piss, so lighten up.
-
I'm just waiting for the non-fiction version of the Bible to come out.
:plus: :agreed:
-
maybe you are if you get upset by my bitching. :laugh: i feel like i'm missing out is all, cuz i can't read long posts like that. i hate debates anyway. but nevermind me, i was just postwhoring. :P
Your bitching gets me hot. But I feel pretty much the same way.
I WISH that I could play, but 'tis just too many words.
-
aaaaa too much text!
not compatable with the ADHD mind.
not indeedy.
OMG, have they already written a thesis? it's like they are being graded or something.
as you can see the fuckers wrote a whole book.
Is it not possible to have a serious discussion here, or do they all need to devolve into witty one-liners and social small-talk? Maybe I'm on the wrong fucking Web site.... ???
I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion, but I don't have anything to add to it at this time.
You are both making good points, I think.
-
Plus, I doubt that our little snipings
are doing too much harm. The only
hope is that the whole thread doesn't
turn into an off topic, smut, playland.
Too many decent things do, but I think
the simple fact that the 'cool folks' ain't
posting here, makes it safer.
-
Plus, I doubt that our little snipings
are doing too much harm. The only
hope is that the whole thread doesn't
turn into an off topic, smut, playland.
Too many decent things do, but I think
the simple fact that the 'cool folks' ain't
posting here, makes it safer.
I can't believe the degree to which we are seeing the same things here.
-
I am not assuming that, but I am saying that it is logically inconsistent to assert that the Bible is true, and then critique its contents selectively as culture changes. How can you know that any of it is true, when the gradual evolution of human society slowly eats away at its neolithic and barbarous contents? This is not to say that the work is without merit, but the assertion that it is the 'word of G-d' and strong faith based upon its contents seems hardly tenable given the criticism that a liberal Christianity such as yours is willing to give it. The fundamentalists are at least more consistent (though ridiculous to an extreme).
Edit: I want to underline mordok's question to you again. We are not questioning the fact that you do not have total faith in all of the text; it is clear that you are not a fundamentalist. The point, rather, is how you make the distinction between one passage's truth and another falsity? What is your basis for such decisions? And more importantly, why do you think there is undeniable truth in any part of the book, when some things can plainly be conceded as errors? Why accept an absurd notion like G-d's incarnation in flesh when you reject other parts of scripture? What makes any of it true for you?
The Old Testament or Torah has been bastardized just as much if not more by people with agendas than any other religious document. It is all a joke. I am no absolutist, there is no almost no absolute truth in this world. The Son of God was always at his right hand according to scripture. Do I really believe that, or more importantly do I really care? The message of Jesus is what I care more about. I don't take all of it either, just what I find to be useful. I am not a religious person at all.
Messianic Judaism seems to me a misguided return to the kind of faith the church of James in Jerusalem once professed, only without the rationale of that earlier entity. Messianic Judaism died out when the world's end proved elusive, and its rebirth is far more a movement within Christianity than a genuine sect of Judaism.
Well there are Jews out there who disagree with you, if you really looked into it. Your assumptions about their education is also very laughable.
I never said that I wasn't Jewish. I am. Although my only temple affiliation was Conservative, I identify as and with the Reconstructionist movement.
Thats great that you have a religion I guess. You obviously take it very seriously and are not held back by any of its principles at the same time. That of course is my assumption.
This leads inevitably back to the question above: Why attribute any of it to G-d and assume its 'truth'? Why accept things, like the Christ hypothesis, that contradict even the culture that inspired it, much less common sense and reason? :) Why believe that humans need a divine 'saviour' in the first place?
Because I believe humans to be absolute shit and truly deserving of death. They need a whole lot of help even if a God didn't exist and there was no afterlife. We are all asses, regardless of religion, race or any other division. I am included. Jesus at least offers forgiveness and a chance to improve yourself. Trying to pretend that you are doing good enough to keep all the laws really is still not being perfect. Striving for improvement is the key factor, otherwise I am just "treading water" so to speak to avoid drowning.
Only inasmuch as it is the theoretical abode of G-d and the heavenly host, etc. That heaven was not conceived as a destination for Man. For example, it is widely believed that Elijah will return to earth to announce the coming of Moshiach. In a sense, then, he is seen as waiting there, in G-d's presence, to come back here and announce the impending 'restoration' of the earth to G-d's original design (an earthly paradise), into which the faithful dead would then awaken.
That is who John the Baptist was thought to represent, the person who was announcing the coming of the Messiah (Jesus). Do you really believe that the faithful dead will reawaken literally and that a heaven on earth will occur just for Jews? Such exclusion based solely on lineage is ridiculous to say the least.
But it isn't contradictory in arguing that women have no rights, etc.! And adultery/polygamy was certainly no crime for those living before the giving of the Law; just look at Abraham... ;D
I wouldn't argue that women have no rights, nor would any sane person for that matter (I could argue neither would some insane people). The Bible isn't taken seriously by most Christians, only by those pushing an agenda.
Exactly so. Slavery is just a given to Paul; just a natural way of life. The unquestioning acceptance of slavery rings out as an endorsement and justification to my ears... especially when taken in context (e.g., metaphorically making all believers into slaves).
Well there is more accepting of slavery in the good Old Testament and the Torah. Actually it does nothing at all to condemn it despite what changes that have been made later on. Those changes are obviously seen as after the fact and a bastardization of the original texts. Comprimise if you will.
*ahem* What about "true G-d and true Man"? Jesus' humanity, as a matter of dogma, is not considered to be a mere form, but a genuine incarnation, making him subject to all of the same aspects of humanity as the rest of us.
He is a human in that he can bleed, but in him is the Son of God (who has been there all along). He has free will to commit the exact same sins as any other human.
What does his mother have to do with fearing his father? If he called G-d his father ("abba"), then the same rule applies, no? ;D
Jesus doesn't exactly act excited to be going to hell to pay for humanity's sins. That would be a healthy fear of the consequences that God has given humanity for its transgressions. Of course you don't believe that God designed heaven or hell for humans or really that kind of afterlife.
You are making a doctrinal justification for breaking one of the mitzvoth; if this was his 'purpose, then his purpose did not involve keeping the Law perfectly, did it?
Many Jewish men were not of the purpose to have children, some are incapable. Jesus was going to die, not be a father raising children with a wife. Sacrificial lamb, not one made for procreating.
Seems to me more likely that your position is a later theological justification for that quote in the death story.
Of course it is, the Bible isn't that clear as to what happens. You could interpret it many ways. The whole thing where Jesus rises from the grave and contacts his disciples and lives for another 40 days until he ascends is a different thing altoghether. That was supposed proof of him being the Messiah.
I thought I recalled him dying when Jesus was relatively young, or at least before his mission. But I'm too lazy now to confirm it!
Not that it matters anyways. He really didn't pass out invitations to his crucifixion.
Tell that to Paul, who argued rather the reverse!
Paul was not for some laws, but not the entire law was to be forsaken. He did make leniency in the whole eating of pork thing. He appealed to Gentiles and make concessions to do so. If he didn't then we wouldn't have some of the problems that we have now. Israel would not exist for one.
Which means it is Christian doctrine, nothing more; it is part-and-parcel of supercessionist theology to take a concept like the Law, which was Jewish, and add things to it on the basis of belief that one man was somehow also G-d. And I'm sorry, but the notion of 'turning the other cheek' is definitely not present in Judaism. Quite the opposite, in fact! ;)
Yeah the Jews didn't mind taking revenge, which is definitely what humans would do in their own nature. Forgiveness is a theme in a good deal of what Jesus preaches. I agree with that more actually, even thought it seems close to impossible to do so.
Exactly so. I do not even think there is justification based on the synoptic gospels for believing in Jesus' divinity. Really, I do not think there is any justification, coming from the pre-Pauline Scriptures and the history, for believing that a man could be also G-d. But if you read the Bible through pagan eyes, such things become more possible.
The Messiah isn't supposed to be a Son of God? David was a child of God as well, but Jesus was to be directly linked to God as an extension (being Jews). It is like God putting his hand on earth in a mortal sense and sending it to hell to pay for the sins of humanity. This symbolic theme is just God's way of saying he forgives us for not keeping his laws and wants us to forgive ourselves. Then we are to change our ways and try to be more like Jesus as we live our lives. That is the religious way of thinking. I am not a religious person, I am more a spiritual person. I basically despise most everything to do with religion especially the more organized aspects.
But I am not taking about a 'simulation', but rather duplication of the same effects and feelings. How is one to tell the difference between an 'experience of G-d' that is caused by a naturally-occurring brain misfire and one triggered by an experimental misfire?
You are speaking of a placebo effect almost. Of course any sensation or feeling that humans can experience can be duplicated eventually through science and technology (manipulating the brain). I wouldn't be surprised with people developing virtual reality that they would try to do such things. I watched the Matrix too many times.
It is of the essence of delusion to make such distinctions. We humans cannot, in fact, determine the genuine reality of any of our sensations, we can only go on the basis of neurological impulses. I have no way of knowing that my childhood memory of seeing ghostly images on the Queen Mary is indicative of real apparitions or a youthful and imaginative brain misfiring. When proof is absent, I fall back on Hume's maxim.
That is your rationalization for my experience. Unfortunately it wasn't like that. I have seen things that I thought were real before but uncertain about them late on. I often hear voices and music that is perceived to be in the next room or downstairs. I open the door and run downstairs to see where the noise is coming from. I often think the house is haunted. That isn't even a fraction as realistic as the voice I heard. Very scary shit that made me look to see if someone was piping noise into my apartment. Feel free to criticize my insane and pretty much delisional nature. I love it, as such things make life much less mundane.
-
The Old Testament or Torah has been bastardized just as much if not more by people with agendas than any other religious document. It is all a joke. I am no absolutist, there is no almost no absolute truth in this world. The Son of God was always at his right hand according to scripture. Do I really believe that, or more importantly do I really care? The message of Jesus is what I care more about. I don't take all of it either, just what I find to be useful. I am not a religious person at all.
What an interesting turn this makes! I can almost relate to the statements above, esp. as regards the message(s) of Jesus (who does seem to have been a great fellow) and the lack of absolute truth (or, as I might put it, knowledge).
Well there are Jews out there who disagree with you, if you really looked into it. Your assumptions about their education is also very laughable.
Of course there are. I have two acquaintances and one friend who call themselves Messianic Jews. And I wasn't so much making an assumption as referencing a statistic; I've seen studies of messianic movements in Judaism, and those that take on a Christian character (i.e., look to Jesus) seem to be most persuasive to Jews without a strong background in Jewish history and theology, such as those raised in a secular environment.
Thats great that you have a religion I guess. You obviously take it very seriously and are not held back by any of its principles at the same time. That of course is my assumption.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. To clarify, my personal identification with Judaism is cultural, not religious; I have no faith in the supernatural whatsoever.
... Why believe that humans need a divine 'saviour' in the first place?
Because I believe humans to be absolute shit and truly deserving of death. They need a whole lot of help even if a God didn't exist and there was no afterlife. We are all asses, regardless of religion, race or any other division. I am included. Jesus at least offers forgiveness and a chance to improve yourself. Trying to pretend that you are doing good enough to keep all the laws really is still not being perfect. Striving for improvement is the key factor, otherwise I am just "treading water" so to speak to avoid drowning.
At times I think I really share your misanthropy. This is a constant battle in my life--between looking at the extraordinary foolishness of man and dreaming of his potential. Most of the time my cynicism wins out, but that would still not be enough for me to want supernatural help.
Personally, I find comfort in studies that place us within our natural context, as I find it easier to accept human stupidity when the line separating us from the rest of the animals is not artificially enhanced. That is, I find it easier to deal with people precisely because I do not believe in a soul or a G-d. If humans really are the special little creatures the Bible says, I'd say the whole planet is probably fucked... :laugh:
That [Elijah] is who John the Baptist was thought to represent, the person who was announcing the coming of the Messiah (Jesus). Do you really believe that the faithful dead will reawaken literally and that a heaven on earth will occur just for Jews? Such exclusion based solely on lineage is ridiculous to say the least.
Do I believe it? Hell no! But to answer your criticism, I don't think an exclusion based on Jewishness is any less or more ridiculous than one based on faith in a dead Jewish rabbi being the incarnation of G-d... ;) As a life-long Pyrrhonhist, I can't stand the idea of any sort of claim to universal truth.
The Bible isn't taken seriously by most Christians, only by those pushing an agenda.
I think you're wrong on that account. Polls of Americans consistently show outrageously strong popular support for such ideas as special creation, the Noachian flood, and End Times prophecy. The evangelical movement is the fastest-growing segment of Christianity; indeed, one can almost say the only significant growth area, as membership of 'traditional' denominations like Anglicanism is in a steep nosedive.
Exactly so. Slavery is just a given to Paul; just a natural way of life. The unquestioning acceptance of slavery rings out as an endorsement and justification to my ears... especially when taken in context (e.g., metaphorically making all believers into slaves).
Well there is more accepting of slavery in the good Old Testament and the Torah. Actually it does nothing at all to condemn it despite what changes that have been made later on. Those changes are obviously seen as after the fact and a bastardization of the original texts. Comprimise if you will.
I'm not sure I understand this comment either. Both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles endorse slavery; I certainly never meant to imply otherwise.
... Of course you don't believe that God designed heaven or hell for humans or really that kind of afterlife.
That's not really the point. I've never believed in any kind of afterlife, because the idea has never seemed appealing to me. But as my position is fairly uncommon, it's usually much more interesting to talk about anyone else's views of the afterlife! ;D
You are making a doctrinal justification for breaking one of the mitzvoth; if this was his 'purpose, then his purpose did not involve keeping the Law perfectly, did it?
Many Jewish men were not of the purpose to have children, some are incapable. Jesus was going to die, not be a father raising children with a wife. Sacrificial lamb, not one made for procreating.
All perfectly reasonable statements, and I completely agree with you. My original point here was to take issue with the belief that Jesus was the only one who kept all of the Law. Whilst I have no doubt that he was a very righteous man who kept all of the mitzvoth to the best of his ability, I see no reason to presume that he kept it all perfectly, or that no-one else has ever done as well as he.
Tell that to Paul, who argued rather the reverse!
Paul was not for some laws, but not the entire law was to be forsaken. He did make leniency in the whole eating of pork thing. He appealed to Gentiles and make concessions to do so. If he didn't then we wouldn't have some of the problems that we have now. Israel would not exist for one.
Now I'm really lost.
Paul's mission was to the Gentiles--the pagans of the Roman world--and he did not make any requirement that they convert to, or accept, Hallachah (the Jewish Law). This was in contrast to James's original strategy: the belief that to be 'saved' one needed to be Jewish. Once you remove the requirement for Jewishness, what use have you for the Law? Why would a pagan adopt any part of it not specifically called for by Pauline Christianity?
On the other hand, Paul seems to have thought that Jews who accepted Jesus should keep to the Law, but that's a very special case, and one that quickly ceased to be relevant (as Christianity only really grew outside of Judaism).
But what do you mean about "problems that we have now", and about Israel? Which 'problems'?
Forgiveness is a theme in a good deal of what Jesus preaches. I agree with that more actually, even thought it seems close to impossible to do so.
I'm quite fond of forgiveness and universal love, too, but I'd never make a hard rule about it. I do not think that folks like Iosef Stalin or, umm, Michael Vick(!) should be endlessly forgiven and set loose to cause more harm...
Exactly so. I do not even think there is justification based on the synoptic gospels for believing in Jesus' divinity. Really, I do not think there is any justification, coming from the pre-Pauline Scriptures and the history, for believing that a man could be also G-d. But if you read the Bible through pagan eyes, such things become more possible.
The Messiah isn't supposed to be a Son of God? David was a child of God as well, but Jesus was to be directly linked to God as an extension (being Jews). It is like God putting his hand on earth in a mortal sense and sending it to hell to pay for the sins of humanity...
Oh, no! This is a common misunderstanding, though, and I've often heard Christians argue that Jesus was killed because he called himself the Messiah--but this was no crime in Judaism! There have been dozens of Messiahs in Jewish history, and none of them have ever been considered divine. Except for Jesus, of course, but as I am suggesting that idea came from the pagan world.
You are speaking of a placebo effect almost...
Hmmm. Well, the description 'placebo' makes the assumption that there is a 'real' effect and one that is counterfeited by science. I am more inclined to think that the effects were always natural, but I can see your point.
That is your rationalization for my experience. Unfortunately it wasn't like that...
Oh, not at all! That was an example from my life to illustrate a general point, not a suggestion that your experience was similar. I am merely suggesting to you that phenomena which we perceive to be supernatural in origin (and 'perception' can come from any sense or no senses at all) are not necessarily so, and there may be a more logical explanation for them. Sort of an Ockham's Razor type of argument, if I may be permitted the cliché.Feel free to criticize my insane and pretty much delisional nature. I love it, as such things make life much less mundane.
I don't think you are any more delusional than I am, or any other human for that matter. At least, I have no sensible grounds to make such a judgement of you! My comment is a general one; the human brain is constantly giving us incomplete or faulty data, and as the mind is a causal machine, some of this data can be interpreted in a supernatural sense. The 'delusions' are a part of normal brain function; it is the interpretations that I frequently take issue with.
-
Personally, I find comfort in studies that place us within our natural context, as I find it easier to accept human stupidity when the line separating us from the rest of the animals is not artificially enhanced. That is, I find it easier to deal with people precisely because I do not believe in a soul or a G-d. If humans really are the special little creatures the Bible says, I'd say the whole planet is probably fucked... :laugh:
Still very much enjoying this whole discussion. But :plus: for this part in particular. :green:
-
:plus: to both Alex and Mort. I admire your stamina in this debate. I think this is one of my favorite threads. Probably because it's one of my favorite topics-- the balance between facts and faith.
-
What an interesting turn this makes! I can almost relate to the statements above, esp. as regards the message(s) of Jesus (who does seem to have been a great fellow) and the lack of absolute truth (or, as I might put it, knowledge).
I see no real turn.
Of course there are. I have two acquaintances and one friend who call themselves Messianic Jews. And I wasn't so much making an assumption as referencing a statistic; I've seen studies of messianic movements in Judaism, and those that take on a Christian character (i.e., look to Jesus) seem to be most persuasive to Jews without a strong background in Jewish history and theology, such as those raised in a secular environment.
Ones raised in a truly secular environment probably wouldn't believe in a god at all. Nevermind accepting the Christian version of the Jewish God.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. To clarify, my personal identification with Judaism is cultural, not religious; I have no faith in the supernatural whatsoever.
Then why even hyphenate God? Cultural respect is very weird in my opinion. I don't go around paying high respect to Celtic religions myself really (even though that is supposed to be my background).
At times I think I really share your misanthropy. This is a constant battle in my life--between looking at the extraordinary foolishness of man and dreaming of his potential. Most of the time my cynicism wins out, but that would still not be enough for me to want supernatural help.
Personally, I find comfort in studies that place us within our natural context, as I find it easier to accept human stupidity when the line separating us from the rest of the animals is not artificially enhanced. That is, I find it easier to deal with people precisely because I do not believe in a soul or a G-d. If humans really are the special little creatures the Bible says, I'd say the whole planet is probably fucked... :laugh:
The world is fucked and humans are not that special. We do however have the benefit of being able to reason, invent and do all sorts of other things the less evolved animals of this planet are incapable of doing. The fact that we are evolved to the point where we can argue over going by animalistic instinct versus human law made to go against those instincts, tells me that we are more special to some extent. That has nothing to do with a soul or an afterlife. The soul and afterlife used to be to me something that was there just because humans are so egotistical that they can't fathom ceasing to exist. If humans want to be more animalistic, then they will start acting like furries or something even more horrible. No thanks to that, I like there to be some sort of seperation between us and the animals (soul or not).
Do I believe it? Hell no! But to answer your criticism, I don't think an exclusion based on Jewishness is any less or more ridiculous than one based on faith in a dead Jewish rabbi being the incarnation of G-d... ;) As a life-long Pyrrhonhist, I can't stand the idea of any sort of claim to universal truth.
At least the faith based belief does not exclude everyone but Jews, anyone can believe in Jesus. They have a choice in the matter as well. If you don't believe in an afterlife then there really is no point.
I think you're wrong on that account. Polls of Americans consistently show outrageously strong popular support for such ideas as special creation, the Noachian flood, and End Times prophecy. The evangelical movement is the fastest-growing segment of Christianity; indeed, one can almost say the only significant growth area, as membership of 'traditional' denominations like Anglicanism is in a steep nosedive.
I can agree on the world flood story with Noah, it seems more than Christians want to believe that one. End times is something that will unfortunately always come up as people expect that to happen in their lifetime, because they think they are special enough for that to happen while they are alive. Yeah special creation my ass, that is just grasping for straws by most who need creationism to justify their faith. They just aren't insane enough imo.
I'm not sure I understand this comment either. Both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles endorse slavery; I certainly never meant to imply otherwise.
Then what is the point? Plenty of ridiculous shit in every religious document pretty much. Especially in ones dating back that far. I expect to read crap like that in something written thousands of years ago.
That's not really the point. I've never believed in any kind of afterlife, because the idea has never seemed appealing to me. But as my position is fairly uncommon, it's usually much more interesting to talk about anyone else's views of the afterlife! ;D
Unfortunately the luxury of beleiving in something that is convenient and appealing to me is no longer available.
Now I'm really lost.
Paul's mission was to the Gentiles--the pagans of the Roman world--and he did not make any requirement that they convert to, or accept, Hallachah (the Jewish Law). This was in contrast to James's original strategy: the belief that to be 'saved' one needed to be Jewish. Once you remove the requirement for Jewishness, what use have you for the Law? Why would a pagan adopt any part of it not specifically called for by Pauline Christianity?
On the other hand, Paul seems to have thought that Jews who accepted Jesus should keep to the Law, but that's a very special case, and one that quickly ceased to be relevant (as Christianity only really grew outside of Judaism).
But what do you mean about "problems that we have now", and about Israel? Which 'problems'?
If that is the one true God, then that law should apply to everyone, not just Jews. A pagan/Gentile would adopt it because they believe in Jesus, and want to be more like him (attempting to keep the law). Of course when you do not believe that God is the creator, his laws mean nothing... no matter if you are Jewish or not.
The problems with Israel are related to Palestine and Islam. Would Israel have been remade if the British, Americans and French were not Christian nations who wanted the Jews to have a place in the "Holy Land"? I doubt WW2 would have even been the same if Chrstianity never reached the Gentiles. Think about a world where the only believers in Jesus (and the God of Israel) are Jews. The problems are due to nations wanting a Jewish state of Israel to exist for some reason. Supposedly Islamic Jihadists would have less of a reason to be assholes if Palestine was still as it was before WW2. Britain was charged with care of Palestine and Iraq in the Mandate of Mesopotamia. They of course made Israel and put the Hussein family in charge of Iraq. We all know how that has turned out.
I'm quite fond of forgiveness and universal love, too, but I'd never make a hard rule about it. I do not think that folks like Iosef Stalin or, umm, Michael Vick(!) should be endlessly forgiven and set loose to cause more harm...
The laws of society and those personal beliefs of forgiveness are two different things. Jesus didn't want people to stop paying tax money to Ceasar for example. Roman law still existed in his mind. I can forgive someone who killed a family member, but society will punish them for example. There still needs to be consequences, just it is better for me personally to not hold onto hate. It isn't my job to be judge, jury and executioner... no matter how much I want to be sometimes. That is up to others thankfully. That is how I take what Jesus said as far as forgiveness goes. I really can't take everything literally myself. That would make me religious and not spiritual. I can only trust what I am led to believe by God, so basically I am a crazy person. I do not trust fully things that are written by humans hundreds of years ago, let alone thousands of years ago. Our own history books have lies in them.
Oh, no! This is a common misunderstanding, though, and I've often heard Christians argue that Jesus was killed because he called himself the Messiah--but this was no crime in Judaism! There have been dozens of Messiahs in Jewish history, and none of them have ever been considered divine. Except for Jesus, of course, but as I am suggesting that idea came from the pagan world.
Jesus said he was God's Son pretty much, though for the most part he hinted at it and wasn't direct. The guy was all about parables and metaphors anways. Jesus having divine powers is more of an explanation of the miracles and him raising from the dead and then ascending 40 days later.
Hmmm. Well, the description 'placebo' makes the assumption that there is a 'real' effect and one that is counterfeited by science. I am more inclined to think that the effects were always natural, but I can see your point.
Often with a placebo the mind tricks itself into experiencing the effects and sometimes can relate upon past experiences to do so. It is like taking a pill that you are told is a drug and fooling yourself into experiencing its effects. The brain can duplicate those effects. I have never had anything hooked into my mind to trick me into experiencing something though. Never been in the Matrix sadly.
I don't think you are any more delusional than I am, or any other human for that matter. At least, I have no sensible grounds to make such a judgement of you! My comment is a general one; the human brain is constantly giving us incomplete or faulty data, and as the mind is a causal machine, some of this data can be interpreted in a supernatural sense. The 'delusions' are a part of normal brain function; it is the interpretations that I frequently take issue with.
That is what makes discussions fun, coming up with ideas on your own. Instead of me going through other avenues and regurgitating crap I read elsewhere, I formulate my own opinions (though they might not make sense to some). At least they are my own.
-
What an interesting turn this makes! I can almost relate to the statements above, esp. as regards the message(s) of Jesus (who does seem to have been a great fellow) and the lack of absolute truth (or, as I might put it, knowledge).
I see no real turn.
Suit yourself. I think the Christian faith (in whatever variety) is the wee contradiction underlying your posts, but never mind that.
Ones raised in a truly secular environment probably wouldn't believe in a god at all. Nevermind accepting the Christian version of the Jewish God.
This shows relatively little appreciation for human nature. Many individuals raised without a religion subsequently seek one, for both cultural reasons (it is something most people have) and personal reasons (many people so raised feel that they are 'missing' something). When a person seeks out a religion to satisfy that inner void, they can turn in any number of directions, and embracing the common faith of your nation is not unusual.
Then why even hyphenate God? Cultural respect is very weird in my opinion. I don't go around paying high respect to Celtic religions myself really (even though that is supposed to be my background).
As I said, out of respect for my cultural heritage. Judaism is a pervasive civilisation, and not really analogous to Celtic origins for an American--or, in most respects, even for an Irishman. The ancient Celtic cultures have been all-but obliterated, and do not have the force of a living tradition like Judaism. And no, I am not dogging the Irish! For the record, I have Irish, Scots, Polish, Sicilian, Bulgarian, and Jewish roots, which makes me a typical American mutt. ;D
The world is fucked and humans are not that special. We do however have the benefit of being able to reason, invent and do all sorts of other things the less evolved animals of this planet are incapable of doing. The fact that we are evolved to the point where we can argue over going by animalistic instinct versus human law made to go against those instincts, tells me that we are more special to some extent. That has nothing to do with a soul or an afterlife. The soul and afterlife used to be to me something that was there just because humans are so egotistical that they can't fathom ceasing to exist. If humans want to be more animalistic, then they will start acting like furries or something even more horrible. No thanks to that, I like there to be some sort of seperation between us and the animals (soul or not).
A 'return' to more base instincts is the last thing any sensible party should want. It is our higher capacity for reason that gave birth to culture, and it is the beauty of culture which allows us to transcend our nature and be more than petty little assholes to each other.
And from my perspective, the afterlife and religion do stand in the way of that, because they allow people to look to someone else to help save them. We will never take full responsibility for our natures and our cultures so long as we can turn to religion to answer fundamental questions, and we will never fully appreciate the beauty and fragility of this life so long as we have another one to look forward to.
It is, in fact, the Christian tendency to denigrate this life in comparison with the next which gets me angry. That simple and pervasive denial of life, and the criminalisation of its many healthy instincts such as sex, may be the single greatest crime of Western civilisation. Moving the emphasis from the life we have to another, illusory, world has had disastrous ramifications for human belief systems and cultural constructs.
At least the faith based belief does not exclude everyone but Jews, anyone can believe in Jesus. They have a choice in the matter as well.
One can also convert to Judaism, you know! ;D And there is no difference between a convert and an ethnic Jew in the eyes of the community. But to reiterate a point, I would rather humans exclude no-one by setting up monolithic beliefs and demanding adherence. I think that orthodox Judaism and Christianity are equally foolish in this matter.
I can agree on the world flood story with Noah, it seems more than Christians want to believe that one. End times is something that will unfortunately always come up as people expect that to happen in their lifetime, because they think they are special enough for that to happen while they are alive. Yeah special creation my ass, that is just grasping for straws by most who need creationism to justify their faith. They just aren't insane enough imo.
Meaning what, exactly? That you think the Noachine flood actually happened? Despite mountains (literally!) of evidence to the contrary? Or that you can agree that many Christians believe in it despite the evidence? Because I do not think there is any real difference between the level of foolishness one expresses in any of these examples, or in thousands of others besides. Vast numbers of Biblical tales strain credulity beyond the breaking point, yet millions of believers refuse to surrender them. Why is that? {rhetorical question} This kind of sincere belief in the obviously impossible (holding the sun still in the sky, turning the Nile to blood, endlessly multiplying bread and fish) is endemic to American Christianity.
I'm not sure I understand this comment either. Both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles endorse slavery; I certainly never meant to imply otherwise.
Then what is the point? Plenty of ridiculous shit in every religious document pretty much. Especially in ones dating back that far. I expect to read crap like that in something written thousands of years ago.
My "point" was in challenging your original statement, to the effect that the Christian Bible was "neutral" on slavery. It clearly is not.
Unfortunately the luxury of beleiving in something that is convenient and appealing to me is no longer available.
???
If that is the one true God, then that law should apply to everyone, not just Jews. A pagan/Gentile would adopt it because they believe in Jesus, and want to be more like him (attempting to keep the law). Of course when you do not believe that God is the creator, his laws mean nothing... no matter if you are Jewish or not.
In this you disagree with Christianity as a whole, both in its traditions and in its contemporary theology. But I would agree with you here: As I said some time earlier, if someone believed sincerely that Jesus was G-d, he should convert to Judaism and keep the commandments! Jesus himself said that 'not one yod nor crown should be removed from the law until its purpose is fulfiled.' (Christians may have decided later that it was fulfiled in Jesus' death, but this ignores the purpose Jesus himself would have grown up with--and which his audience would have understood--namely, the perfection of the earth: tikkun olam).
The problems with Israel are related to Palestine and Islam. Would Israel have been remade if the British, Americans and French were not Christian nations who wanted the Jews to have a place in the "Holy Land"?
In fact, I do think exactly that, and I would argue it as a historian of the Middle East. The West in general, and Britain in particular, did rather a lot to obstruct the creation of a Jewish state, and it is probable that only the revelation of Nazi atrocities made a UN vote to partition successful. Israel's birth was inevitable given the increasing numbers of ancient alien emigrants to Palestine throughout the early 20th century.
I doubt WW2 would have even been the same if Chrstianity never reached the Gentiles.
Everything would be different, so this is kind of a non-starter as arguments go.
Think about a world where the only believers in Jesus (and the God of Israel) are Jews.
I have, and there was once such a world. It ended with Paul's message to Gentiles reaching a receptive audience, whilst the basis for belief amongst Jews--the coming end of the world--failed to transpire, leading the movement in Judaism to die out.
The problems are due to nations wanting a Jewish state of Israel to exist for some reason. Supposedly Islamic Jihadists would have less of a reason to be assholes if Palestine was still as it was before WW2. Britain was charged with care of Palestine and Iraq in the Mandate of Mesopotamia. They of course made Israel and put the Hussein family in charge of Iraq. We all know how that has turned out.
This would make for a whole different conversation, so if someone wants to start that in another thread, I'm game. The situations in Iraq and Palestine deserve better than to be tacked onto a discussion of Christian faith and dogma...
The laws of society and those personal beliefs of forgiveness are two different things. Jesus didn't want people to stop paying tax money to Ceasar for example. Roman law still existed in his mind. I can forgive someone who killed a family member, but society will punish them for example.
But taxes are not a moral problem for Judaism, or for Jesus! A Roman law which prevented Jewish worship, however, would be. Note the disastrous revolt against Roman authority which resulted in the Temple's destruction; defeat was almost certain, but the Roman insult to their faith was intolerable. Note also Jesus' response to financial dealing in the Temple.
I think it is entirely plausible that Jesus would have wished society's laws to reflect accurately the moral values of the people. This is a point with wider implications, of course, because it is certainly true of our own time. Executions, for example, have disappeared in the rest of the Western world because they are considered morally repugnant. Jesus, I am quite sure, would have agreed with such a change.
... That is how I take what Jesus said as far as forgiveness goes. I really can't take everything literally myself. That would make me religious and not spiritual. I can only trust what I am led to believe by God, so basically I am a crazy person. I do not trust fully things that are written by humans hundreds of years ago, let alone thousands of years ago. Our own history books have lies in them.
Your identification with and commitment to Christianity still amazes me, given this position.
Jesus said he was God's Son pretty much, though for the most part he hinted at it and wasn't direct. The guy was all about parables and metaphors anways. Jesus having divine powers is more of an explanation of the miracles and him raising from the dead and then ascending 40 days later.
He said so in John's gospel, written a century later. In each of the synoptics his statements are not inconsistent with a more base, Jewish reading of his intent: that he was G-d's son in the way that all of G-d's people were.
As for the 40 days thing, have you ever noticed that the accounts differ? As I recall, in Luke 24 he departs from his followers on the same day as the resurrection, and it was only in Acts that we get the 40-day figure. Makes it more difficult to believe those books had the same author, too. :laugh: The line about ascending to heaven was also inserted later into the text of Luke; it originally said only that he was 'removed from them'.
I don't think you are any more delusional than I am, or any other human for that matter. At least, I have no sensible grounds to make such a judgement of you! My comment is a general one; the human brain is constantly giving us incomplete or faulty data, and as the mind is a causal machine, some of this data can be interpreted in a supernatural sense. The 'delusions' are a part of normal brain function; it is the interpretations that I frequently take issue with.
That is what makes discussions fun, coming up with ideas on your own. Instead of me going through other avenues and regurgitating crap I read elsewhere, I formulate my own opinions (though they might not make sense to some). At least they are my own.
An admirable position; independence of thought is always respectable. One caveat I would add, however, is the danger of taking firm opinions on the basis of incomplete or fragmentary data. It is not a surrender of personal judgement to look for support or criticism of your positions in scholarly works and original sources. It is, in fact, the most intellectually honest path available...
-
vortex_13 would be proud. :'(
-
vortex_13 would be proud. :'(
What happend to him??
-
:plus: to both Alex and Mort. I admire your stamina in this debate. I think this is one of my favorite threads. Probably because it's one of my favorite topics-- the balance between facts and faith.
I don't see a ballance between facts and faith. They occupy two different worlds.
-
:plus: to both Alex and Mort. I admire your stamina in this debate. I think this is one of my favorite threads. Probably because it's one of my favorite topics-- the balance between facts and faith.
I don't see a ballance between facts and faith. They occupy two different worlds.
I agree with this actually.
Suit yourself. I think the Christian faith (in whatever variety) is the wee contradiction underlying your posts, but never mind that.
Of course, because even Christianity in its purest form contradicts itself in some ways. You mistake me for a someone who takes the literal religion seriously though. I only identify with what I see from Jesus as a Biblical figure and some of his lessons. I do however pray to God but that is normally reserved for certain things that I think are important enough to pray about.
This shows relatively little appreciation for human nature. Many individuals raised without a religion subsequently seek one, for both cultural reasons (it is something most people have) and personal reasons (many people so raised feel that they are 'missing' something). When a person seeks out a religion to satisfy that inner void, they can turn in any number of directions, and embracing the common faith of your nation is not unusual.
If they were in a truly secular environment their nation would have no common faith to embrace. No faith would exist in that type of environment.
As I said, out of respect for my cultural heritage. Judaism is a pervasive civilisation, and not really analogous to Celtic origins for an American--or, in most respects, even for an Irishman. The ancient Celtic cultures have been all-but obliterated, and do not have the force of a living tradition like Judaism. And no, I am not dogging the Irish! For the record, I have Irish, Scots, Polish, Sicilian, Bulgarian, and Jewish roots, which makes me a typical American mutt. ;D
The main reason why the Jewish God has become as pervasive is due to the existence of Christianity. Before that there was considerably less interest in the Jewish faith, Paul and Peter had to make it palatable for the Gentile. That is also why the pagan faith of the Irish is no longer what it used to be (well same goes for many other European belief systems to an extent).
A 'return' to more base instincts is the last thing any sensible party should want. It is our higher capacity for reason that gave birth to culture, and it is the beauty of culture which allows us to transcend our nature and be more than petty little angel fluffy bunnys to each other.
And from my perspective, the afterlife and religion do stand in the way of that, because they allow people to look to someone else to help save them. We will never take full responsibility for our natures and our cultures so long as we can turn to religion to answer fundamental questions, and we will never fully appreciate the beauty and fragility of this life so long as we have another one to look forward to.
It is, in fact, the Christian tendency to denigrate this life in comparison with the next which gets me angry. That simple and pervasive denial of life, and the criminalisation of its many healthy instincts such as sex, may be the single greatest crime of Western civilisation. Moving the emphasis from the life we have to another, illusory, world has had disastrous ramifications for human belief systems and cultural constructs.
I disagree, the afterlife shouldn't be something that changes how you live in this life. I appreciate this life fully as it is, afterlife or no afterlife. I would like to believe my afterlife would be better than the current life, but that can't be an expectation imo. Sex is criminalized (outside of marriage) due to it being just for pleasure and not procreation. What ramifications do you speak of? Whoever thinks about their afterlife more than their current one is a fool. All it is good for is fantasy, because you have no way of knowing what you will go through after you die specifically.
One can also convert to Judaism, you know! ;D And there is no difference between a convert and an ethnic Jew in the eyes of the community. But to reiterate a point, I would rather humans exclude no-one by setting up monolithic beliefs and demanding adherence. I think that orthodox Judaism and Christianity are equally foolish in this matter.
I would consider converting to Judaism as moving backwards , same goes for converting to any religion. I don't associate myself really with Christianity either, I just say that to avoid having to explain things to people. They don't want me to rant on why I hate religion and only value spirituality. Normally I just avoid religion or spirituality altogether. Most people can't understand it anyways.
Meaning what, exactly? That you think the Noachine flood actually happened? Despite mountains (literally!) of evidence to the contrary? Or that you can agree that many Christians believe in it despite the evidence? Because I do not think there is any real difference between the level of foolishness one expresses in any of these examples, or in thousands of others besides. Vast numbers of Biblical tales strain credulity beyond the breaking point, yet millions of believers refuse to surrender them. Why is that? {rhetorical question} This kind of sincere belief in the obviously impossible (holding the sun still in the sky, turning the Nile to blood, endlessly multiplying bread and fish) is endemic to American Christianity.
I was saying that many Christians (and members other faiths) believe that the world was flooded. Basically people will search for any evidence of a world flood not just for religious support but because they find it interesting period. Even with the religious argument taken out of the picture the world flood is still interesting no matter how incredibly unlikely it is to have occured. Most Christians (and Jews) take most of those miracles literally. They are the actions of an omnipotent God, that can do as it chooses and doesn't have to explain its actions to any human. That it would be even bother with doing so is basically a nice gesture. They refuse to surrender because they have faith that the documents and things written are true. Their faith is in humans to take care of such documents and keep them from being perverted and misused. Such faith in humans to handle the words of a God correctly is very foolish. Those are religious people, they have faith in that their religion is right in how it preserved its texts. They have no personal connection with God usually, just a placebo effect attached to the other members of their church's experiences.
My "point" was in challenging your original statement, to the effect that the Christian Bible was "neutral" on slavery. It clearly is not.
Eh the slavery to sin and then to the laws of God are not literal, but I can concede that Paul wasn't against slavery at all. I believe in relativism according to time period. Morals are not absolute over time periods in my opinion. He appears rather neutral in regards to the situation compared to all of the other authors during that time period. He sees slavery as it was seen through the eyes of a man of his time. He did not argue for enslaving other cultures like it was the right of Christians to do such a thing (hi social darwinism).
In this you disagree with Christianity as a whole, both in its traditions and in its contemporary theology. But I would agree with you here: As I said some time earlier, if someone believed sincerely that Jesus was G-d, he should convert to Judaism and keep the commandments! Jesus himself said that 'not one yod nor crown should be removed from the law until its purpose is fulfiled.' (Christians may have decided later that it was fulfiled in Jesus' death, but this ignores the purpose Jesus himself would have grown up with--and which his audience would have understood--namely, the perfection of the earth: tikkun olam).
No you are still supposed to keep the commandments and such as a Christian. Jesus died so people can be forgiven and go and sin no more. It doesn't give you a free pass to the afterlife if you actually read the New Testament. There are still morals that have to be adhered to, hence the work in progress thing. Christians are not perfect after being saved, they still sin and still need to work on what causes them to sin. As you live out your days you work to be more perfect, it is a process and no overnight change.
In fact, I do think exactly that, and I would argue it as a historian of the Middle East. The West in general, and Britain in particular, did rather a lot to obstruct the creation of a Jewish state, and it is probable that only the revelation of Nazi atrocities made a UN vote to partition successful. Israel's birth was inevitable given the increasing numbers of ancient alien emigrants to Palestine throughout the early 20th century.
The Ottoman Empire and the rest of the people living in the Mesopotamian region most likely would have stood in the way of a Jewish state there considering that the area was controlled by those people until the Brits decided to make a Jewish Israel. I do not see the state of Israel being anywhere near inevitable, it was extremely reliant on the actions of Europe. The rise of fascism in Europe was the main reason for the immigration to Palestine by Jews.
Everything would be different, so this is kind of a non-starter as arguments go.
Of course it would, it isn't really an argument either. When I start with imagining things, arguments go out the window.
I have, and there was once such a world. It ended with Paul's message to Gentiles reaching a receptive audience, whilst the basis for belief amongst Jews--the coming end of the world--failed to transpire, leading the movement in Judaism to die out.
I wasn't referring to back then, but now. Everything would be different, I think that the Islamists would have killed off all the Jews living in the area of Palestine for example and prevented them successfully from ever residing there again.
This would make for a whole different conversation, so if someone wants to start that in another thread, I'm game. The situations in Iraq and Palestine deserve better than to be tacked onto a discussion of Christian faith and dogma...
This thread was about what the Bible said in regards to homosexuality, and it has gone a while different direction. It wasn't about my personal opinion on homosexuality, Christianity or anything else. Sure has turned out that way though lol. I don't think the situations in Iraq and Palestine deserve better or worse. I would gladly kill everyone there if it were up to me. They don't get special treatment as the rest of the world is just as deserving of death.
But taxes are not a moral problem for Judaism, or for Jesus! A Roman law which prevented Jewish worship, however, would be. Note the disastrous revolt against Roman authority which resulted in the Temple's destruction; defeat was almost certain, but the Roman insult to their faith was intolerable. Note also Jesus' response to financial dealing in the Temple.
I think it is entirely plausible that Jesus would have wished society's laws to reflect accurately the moral values of the people. This is a point with wider implications, of course, because it is certainly true of our own time. Executions, for example, have disappeared in the rest of the Western world because they are considered morally repugnant. Jesus, I am quite sure, would have agreed with such a change.
He seemed to go with the flow somewhat in regards to laws of a government. Obviously he wouldn't be cool with laws preventing worship of God lol.
Your identification with and commitment to Christianity still amazes me, given this position.
It sure would if I identified myself truly with a religion and not with spirituality. I don't take the traditional institutions that seriously however. I only identify with Christianity in that I like the teachings of Jesus (well most of them) and that I pray to God. I sure as hell don't live my life like a Christian to be honest. So where is the commitment?
He said so in John's gospel, written a century later. In each of the synoptics his statements are not inconsistent with a more base, Jewish reading of his intent: that he was G-d's son in the way that all of G-d's people were.
As for the 40 days thing, have you ever noticed that the accounts differ? As I recall, in Luke 24 he departs from his followers on the same day as the resurrection, and it was only in Acts that we get the 40-day figure. Makes it more difficult to believe those books had the same author, too. :laugh: The line about ascending to heaven was also inserted later into the text of Luke; it originally said only that he was 'removed from them'.
Of course the records made by people are going to differ. Me and my dad differ in memories when we were both present as an example. Yes I noticed all of those things even when I was a child (inconsistencies in the Bible). The arguments (if you want to call them that) you have been having with me are things I discussed when I was 15 or 16 years old. That is when I would say I started to be an atheist instead of agnostic. At age 23 as I have said before is when I started to believe a god exists (I didn't get more specific until after that). None of that was based on facts in the least, it was acquired faith in God not religion.
An admirable position; independence of thought is always respectable. One caveat I would add, however, is the danger of taking firm opinions on the basis of incomplete or fragmentary data. It is not a surrender of personal judgement to look for support or criticism of your positions in scholarly works and original sources. It is, in fact, the most intellectually honest path available...
What firm opinions? When I express Christianity's views as I see them, then I am spouting the opinions of an organized religion as I see them. That is what I was doing earlier in this thread in regards to homosexuality. My personal opinions are different.
-
Jesus created a New Covenant, the Ten Commandment where of the Old Covenant. They are good Ideals [Old Covenant] to live by but not of the New Covenant. So Christians do not live by the Old Covenant but the New Covenant which is Love.
-
You mistake me for a someone who takes the literal religion seriously though. I only identify with what I see from Jesus as a Biblical figure and some of his lessons. I do however pray to God but that is normally reserved for certain things that I think are important enough to pray about.
I am trying not to so mistake you; I think something further down in this post will give me a way to clarify my criticism re: your profession of Christianity. (And by 'criticism' I mean that there is a distinction to be made, not that judgement has been passed!)
This shows relatively little appreciation for human nature. Many individuals raised without a religion subsequently seek one, for both cultural reasons (it is something most people have) and personal reasons (many people so raised feel that they are 'missing' something). When a person seeks out a religion to satisfy that inner void, they can turn in any number of directions, and embracing the common faith of your nation is not unusual.
If they were in a truly secular environment their nation would have no common faith to embrace. No faith would exist in that type of environment.
Huh?! By this definition, no secular environment exists anywhere on Planet Earth!!
A 'secular environment', in the context I was using, referred to a single household. Many Jews in the West are raised with the knowledge of their Jewishness, but with no overt religious practice or feeling (in recent history this flowed in many cases from scars of the Holocaust, but Jews have been increasingly secularised since the 19th century). Someone raised in a secular household may feel that their life is empty without metaphysical or transcendent meaning, and seek that in a common religion in their land of birth.
In broader terms, one might even call some countries a 'secular environment', as public religiosity is increasingly uncommon in, e.g., much of western Europe, and the secular status of many governments is encoded in the law (e.g., the USA & France). In such environments, religion is not a matter of public or pervasive pressure--such as that found in many Muslim countries where religious law rules--and it is left to personal decision. However, the nature of the religious community is seldom in any doubt; following the examples above, one can easily conclude that Roman Catholicism dominates French religious life and Protestantism (increasingly evangelical in nature) predominates in American culture. Someone raised in a secular household and seeking a religious experience could easily enough sample this faith, no?
As I said, out of respect for my cultural heritage. Judaism is a pervasive civilisation, and not really analogous to Celtic origins for an American--or, in most respects, even for an Irishman. The ancient Celtic cultures have been all-but obliterated, and do not have the force of a living tradition like Judaism. And no, I am not dogging the Irish! For the record, I have Irish, Scots, Polish, Sicilian, Bulgarian, and Jewish roots, which makes me a typical American mutt. ;D
The main reason why the Jewish God has become as pervasive is due to the existence of Christianity. Before that there was considerably less interest in the Jewish faith, Paul and Peter had to make it palatable for the Gentile. That is also why the pagan faith of the Irish is no longer what it used to be (well same goes for many other European belief systems to an extent).
You mistake my meaning. I meant that Judaism penetrates and permeates the identity of those raised in full knowledge of their Jewishness, and that such an identity comes with easily-identifiable cultural markers that have wide circulation amongst co-religionists. Judaism is not only a religion, it is a cultural and national identity. Your reference to Celtic heritage has almost nothing akin to this; being raised with knowledge of Irish roots does not seem to predispose one to particular acts and traits in a similar way.
It is, in fact, the Christian tendency to denigrate this life in comparison with the next which gets me angry. That simple and pervasive denial of life, and the criminalisation of its many healthy instincts such as sex, may be the single greatest crime of Western civilisation. Moving the emphasis from the life we have to another, illusory, world has had disastrous ramifications for human belief systems and cultural constructs.
I disagree, the afterlife shouldn't be something that changes how you live in this life. I appreciate this life fully as it is, afterlife or no afterlife. I would like to believe my afterlife would be better than the current life, but that can't be an expectation imo. [...] What ramifications do you speak of? Whoever thinks about their afterlife more than their current one is a fool. All it is good for is fantasy, because you have no way of knowing what you will go through after you die specifically.
The knowledge, instilled by a religious faith, that one should live a certain way to avoid damnation does alter the way that one lives; it would have to! If one sincerely believes in heaven and hell, one cannot live life without bearing those beliefs in mind, even if only in the back of one's mind. And the simple fact of doing so means that religiously-inspired 'morality' trumps natural morality, leaving us with ridiculous presumptions with regard to right and wrong. The common canard that religion makes people more ethical is destroyed by even a cursory examination of the evidence.
Anyroad, I admire your expressed position on the afterlife and this life, but I still feel that it contradicts even a basic, spiritualised acceptance of Christianity.
Sex is criminalized (outside of marriage) due to it being just for pleasure and not procreation.
Why? It offers both pleasure and procreation, so why should one have any stigma attached at all? This is a perfect example of religious views intruding on natural grounds, offering bizarre rationalisations for denying life. Sex, in its pleasurable aspects, is a part of this life; of human life. Denying it in any way, whether through enforced social codes (strict monogamy, prohibition of extramarital sex, etc.) or internalised injunctions (as against masturbation) is, in my view, criminal in itself. Christianity's obscene position on human sexuality (historically speaking) is reason enough to condemn it as immoral and unnatural; as anti-life.
I would consider converting to Judaism as moving backwards ...
Thanks to Christianity's violent usurpation of Jewish history, sure! But without the inherently-antisemitic theology of supercession, how could it be a 'step backward'? Rather than, say, a step laterally, into a merely different condition?
I don't associate myself really with Christianity either, I just say that to avoid having to explain things to people. They don't want me to rant on why I hate religion and only value spirituality. Normally I just avoid religion or spirituality altogether. Most people can't understand it anyways. [ ... ]
Your identification with and commitment to Christianity still amazes me, given this position.
It sure would if I identified myself truly with a religion and not with spirituality. I don't take the traditional institutions that seriously however. I only identify with Christianity in that I like the teachings of Jesus (well most of them) and that I pray to God. I sure as hell don't live my life like a Christian to be honest. So where is the commitment?
This is where I need to establish a definitional difference between religion and spirituality, because in character you describe yourself in spiritualistic terms, yet the basic facts of the faith you have described are entirely religious.
Let's start with 'spirituality'; is this an acceptable definition? "The quality or condition of being spiritual; attachment to or regard for things of the spirit as opposed to material or worldly interests." But what, then, is 'spirit'? I can think of several approaches: That of "the animating or vital principle in man (and animals); that which gives life to the physical organism, in contrast to its purely material elements; the breath of life", as found in vitalist philosophy (cf. Bergson). Or we could locate it in the issue of mind-body duality (cf. Descartes), as with the following: "Incorporeal or immaterial being, as opposed to body or matter; being or intelligence conceived as distinct from, or independent of, anything physical or material" and "The immaterial intelligent or sentient element or part of a person, frequently in implied or expressed contrast to the body". Spirituality, then, is a very vague term, implying only that there is an essential distinction between this existence and a 'higher' state of being, one which may be entered through ritual, or prayer, or upon the body's death, or what-have-you. In itself, spirituality has no dogmatic features beyond this core belief in the immaterial realm.
Religion, however, is entirely dependent upon dogmatic elements. I will define 'religious' as being: "Imbued with religion; exhibiting the spiritual or practical effects of religion; pious, godly, god-fearing, devout". Okay, then, what is 'religion'? I think a definition that should agree with nearly any dictionary might contain such elements as follows: "Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life." Do you see from this why I cannot understand or accept the distinction which you draw between your spiritualism and religiosity? Simply by committing yourself to the proposition "There is a G-d", you are taking a religious position, not a spiritual one. As for my reference to your "commitment to Christianity", this flows directly from your belief that Jesus and G-d are one. Viewing Jesus in such a way produces a fundamentally religious principle.
Were your feelings for Jesus restricted to the appreciation for his teaching noted above, I would say that I entirely share them, and that neither of our positions were religious. Were you to restrict yourself to such an appreciation and combine that with "prayer to G-d", I would say that you practiced a thoroughly devolved form of Judaism. But if you combine that appreciation for Jesus' teachings with the belief that Jesus is G-d / the 'son' of G-d, you have stepped thoroughly inside the Christian camp. More so, in fact, than even the Mormons, who call themselves Christians despite a theology that entirely diverges from the fundamental identifying marks of faith. In sum, I will suggest that your stated positions on Jesus and G-d make you a religious Christian, whether or not you identify with a particular denomination or set of beliefs and practices. Simply believing in G-d makes you religious, by definition, and believing specifically in the notion that Jesus is G-d makes you a Christian.
Most Christians (and Jews) take most of those miracles literally. They are the actions of an omnipotent God, that can do as it chooses and doesn't have to explain its actions to any human. That it would be even bother with doing so is basically a nice gesture.
Ah, but they are only such actions if they can be shown to have occurred, eh? If all they are is stories, then they are not the "actions of an omnipotent G-d", but rather the moral, political, and military tales of an ancient Canaanite culture, with no more veracity as fact than the tales of Odin One-Eye or Gilgamesh.
They refuse to surrender because they have faith that the documents and things written are true. Their faith is in humans to take care of such documents and keep them from being perverted and misused. Such faith in humans to handle the words of a God correctly is very foolish. Those are religious people, they have faith in that their religion is right in how it preserved its texts.
This cuts, again, right to heart of my claim that yours is a religious faith. You, too, have faith in those words, because they are the only source of practical (material) validation for your belief that Jesus is G-d. Clearly the words that appear there about Jesus have some personal significance. If someone showed (somehow) that none of it was accurate, what form then could such a faith as yours take? Can there be a Christ without a Jesus?
They have no personal connection with God usually, just a placebo effect attached to the other members of their church's experiences.
This is, depending on the reader's point of view, either a very rude assumption about the spiritual feelings of others, or an equally apt description of all non-insane members of a congregation! :laugh: Psychologically speaking, it is entirely possible for everyone to be 'faking it' (whether consciously or--in most cases--not) as a matter of course; or, they could all be feeling the same thing, irrespective of their desire to validate and believe the events in those ancient texts.
In this you disagree with Christianity as a whole, both in its traditions and in its contemporary theology. But I would agree with you here: As I said some time earlier, if someone believed sincerely that Jesus was G-d, he should convert to Judaism and keep the commandments! Jesus himself said that 'not one yod nor crown should be removed from the law until its purpose is fulfiled.' (Christians may have decided later that it was fulfiled in Jesus' death, but this ignores the purpose Jesus himself would have grown up with--and which his audience would have understood--namely, the perfection of the earth: tikkun olam).
No you are still supposed to keep the commandments and such as a Christian. Jesus died so people can be forgiven and go and sin no more. It doesn't give you a free pass to the afterlife if you actually read the New Testament. There are still morals that have to be adhered to, hence the work in progress thing. Christians are not perfect after being saved, they still sin and still need to work on what causes them to sin. As you live out your days you work to be more perfect, it is a process and no overnight change.
I can entirely agree.
The Ottoman Empire and the rest of the people living in the Mesopotamian region most likely would have stood in the way of a Jewish state there considering that the area was controlled by those people until the Brits decided to make a Jewish Israel. I do not see the state of Israel being anywhere near inevitable, it was extremely reliant on the actions of Europe. The rise of fascism in Europe was the main reason for the immigration to Palestine by Jews.
Many people did stand in the way, and Israel won its war of independence without any help from Europe or the US. That fact alone makes it, in hindsight, an inevitability, no? ;D Its prosperity afterward, of course, did depend upon the actions of Europe (such as the French military assistance before and following the Suez Crisis, and the German economic aid that followed Adenauer's decision).
The rise of fascism certainly inspired emigration to Palestine, but this emigration was frequently stopped and had to proceed in small trickles, mostly illegally, for the entire latter period of British control. Even in 1948, on the eve of independence, the British still kept emigrants from landing in Palestine with specially-constructed internment camps on Cyprus. And by making fascism the principle motivator, you ignore the compelling ancient alien case which preceded it by several decades and which provided, by numbers, much more of the emigration to Palestine than came in the later 30s and 40s. The British were far more lax about it in the early years of the Mandate.
... I think that the Islamists would have killed off all the Jews living in the area of Palestine for example and prevented them successfully from ever residing there again.
Oh? They seem to have done a lousy job fighting the Haganah and Irgun in the Mandate era, and certainly in the wars that followed with the IDF. Look at the early history of conflict in Palestine and then tell me that defeat was likely for the ancient aliens. These were motivated, disciplined, well-equipped colonists, and they did as well against the Arabs as European armies had done only a short time before.
This would make for a whole different conversation, so if someone wants to start that in another thread, I'm game. The situations in Iraq and Palestine deserve better than to be tacked onto a discussion of Christian faith and dogma...
This thread was about what the Bible said in regards to homosexuality, and it has gone a while different direction. It wasn't about my personal opinion on homosexuality, Christianity or anything else. Sure has turned out that way though lol. I don't think the situations in Iraq and Palestine deserve better or worse. I would gladly kill everyone there if it were up to me. They don't get special treatment as the rest of the world is just as deserving of death.
I didn't mean that the people deserved anything, but that the topic--if it is to be started--should be in a thread with an obvious title, which would more easily invite interested parties to join in.
... At age 23 as I have said before is when I started to believe a god exists (I didn't get more specific until after that). None of that was based on facts in the least, it was acquired faith in God not religion.
This bring us neatly back to the main point made above. I understand that your experience gave you a faith in G-d, but I question the form it has taken. What makes it the Christian G-d that you revere, and not another, if not the culture in which you have been raised and the form of G-d with which you are most familiar?
An admirable position; independence of thought is always respectable. One caveat I would add, however, is the danger of taking firm opinions on the basis of incomplete or fragmentary data. It is not a surrender of personal judgement to look for support or criticism of your positions in scholarly works and original sources. It is, in fact, the most intellectually honest path available...
What firm opinions? When I express Christianity's views as I see them, then I am spouting the opinions of an organized religion as I see them. That is what I was doing earlier in this thread in regards to homosexuality. My personal opinions are different.
What opinions, you ask? What, then, of the assertion that Jesus is G-d and/or the 'son of G-d? That he died for our sins? These are beliefs that you hold, yes?
{General grip: Why is "med-i-ta-tion" turned into "sleeping with my head in the toilet"?! Is there a general list of these things posted somewhere, 'cuz it's getting really frustrating to find them by accident! :laugh:}
-
Jesus created a New Covenant, the Ten Commandment where of the Old Covenant. They are good Ideals [Old Covenant] to live by but not of the New Covenant. So Christians do not live by the Old Covenant but the New Covenant which is Love.
I understand this but why is it a lot of the fundamentalists always refer to the Old Testament and living by that and not just the New Testament. They pick and choose what suits them this is where I have a problem.
-
Jesus created a New Covenant, the Ten Commandment where of the Old Covenant. They are good Ideals [Old Covenant] to live by but not of the New Covenant. So Christians do not live by the Old Covenant but the New Covenant which is Love.
I understand this but why is it a lot of the fundamentalists always refer to the Old Testament and living by that and not just the New Testament. They pick and choose what suits them this is where I have a problem.
Given all the evil shit that's in the old testament, I PREFFER that they pick and choose, so long as they do a good job of it. 8)
-
{General grip: Why is "med-i-ta-tion" turned into "sleeping with my head in the toilet"?! Is there a general list of these things posted somewhere, 'cuz it's getting really frustrating to find them by accident! :laugh:}
Here are the words that were put into the word filter to be funny because some people were overusing them, Morthaur:
Meditation is "sleeping with my head in the toilet".
Arse is "AAARRSE!!".
Asshole is "angel fluffy bunny".
Fuckn is "fairy".
There used to be others, but this is the latest list.
-
Given all the evil shit that's in the old testament, I PREFFER that they pick and choose, so long as they do a good job of it. 8)
Oh, I rather wish they'd live according
to OT laws. Then we could lock up the
sick fucks.
-
Given all the evil shit that's in the old testament, I PREFFER that they pick and choose, so long as they do a good job of it. 8)
Oh, I rather wish they'd live according
to OT laws. Then we could lock up the
sick fucks.
You just want dirty man-sex with Ragtime. :anal: :smarty:
-
Who doesn't?
-
Jesus created a New Covenant, the Ten Commandment where of the Old Covenant. They are good Ideals [Old Covenant] to live by but not of the New Covenant. So Christians do not live by the Old Covenant but the New Covenant which is Love.
I understand this but why is it a lot of the fundamentalists always refer to the Old Testament and living by that and not just the New Testament. They pick and choose what suits them this is where I have a problem.
Given all the evil shit that's in the old testament, I PREFFER that they pick and choose, so long as they do a good job of it. 8)
I'd prefer they just go away or keep to themselves instead of trying to force their will on others.
-
Here are the words that were put into the word filter to be funny because some people were overusing them...
Ah, such a quick answer to my wee gripe! Much obliged!
At least the list is short; I was worried that there were dozens of them, lying in wait to confuse me. :green:
-
Jesus created a New Covenant, the Ten Commandment where of the Old Covenant. They are good Ideals [Old Covenant] to live by but not of the New Covenant. So Christians do not live by the Old Covenant but the New Covenant which is Love.
I understand this but why is it a lot of the fundamentalists always refer to the Old Testament and living by that and not just the New Testament. They pick and choose what suits them this is where I have a problem.
I would agree You that the fundamentalists are the problem in the end. They are wrong in the way that they use the Bible Old and New Testaments and interpret the Bible in the wrong way. They have Blinded Themselves to the true Meaning and Understanding and have no Real Knowledge of the True Covenants of God in the end.
-
A 'secular environment', in the context I was using, referred to a single household. Many Jews in the West are raised with the knowledge of their Jewishness, but with no overt religious practice or feeling (in recent history this flowed in many cases from scars of the Holocaust, but Jews have been increasingly secularised since the 19th century). Someone raised in a secular household may feel that their life is empty without metaphysical or transcendent meaning, and seek that in a common religion in their land of birth.
In broader terms, one might even call some countries a 'secular environment', as public religiosity is increasingly uncommon in, e.g., much of western Europe, and the secular status of many governments is encoded in the law (e.g., the USA & France). In such environments, religion is not a matter of public or pervasive pressure--such as that found in many Muslim countries where religious law rules--and it is left to personal decision. However, the nature of the religious community is seldom in any doubt; following the examples above, one can easily conclude that Roman Catholicism dominates French religious life and Protestantism (increasingly evangelical in nature) predominates in American culture. Someone raised in a secular household and seeking a religious experience could easily enough sample this faith, no?
The environment isn't restricted to just the household. If they were raised in a secular household it would be a different story, but you said environment origninally. The thing " such as those raised in a secular environment." is what you used, that implies that the community around them are also not Jewish (same with other family members outside of the immediate family). My parents for example tried to convert my cousin to Christianity even though he wasn't raised as a Christian by my father's sister. That isn't a secular environment, neither is anything else around people in most countries in the world. That would be the villiage raises the child versus just the parents influencing the child in raising argument. As much as we wish that the parents are the sole influence, they can only shelter a child so much. China and the former Soviet Union were supposedly true secular environments.
You mistake my meaning. I meant that Judaism penetrates and permeates the identity of those raised in full knowledge of their Jewishness, and that such an identity comes with easily-identifiable cultural markers that have wide circulation amongst co-religionists. Judaism is not only a religion, it is a cultural and national identity. Your reference to Celtic heritage has almost nothing akin to this; being raised with knowledge of Irish roots does not seem to predispose one to particular acts and traits in a similar way.
You think? Then why the hell are close to all of my Irish relatives alcoholics with short tempers? They don't follow their old religion due to Christianity taking over due to St. Patrick, that is all. They are still Irish. There is a cultural and national identity to being Irish, sorry to break it to you. We still eat Corned beef and cabbage in my family for example, some also drink Guiness and Irish Coffee (uses Whiskey) too lol.
The knowledge, instilled by a religious faith, that one should live a certain way to avoid damnation does alter the way that one lives; it would have to! If one sincerely believes in heaven and hell, one cannot live life without bearing those beliefs in mind, even if only in the back of one's mind. And the simple fact of doing so means that religiously-inspired 'morality' trumps natural morality, leaving us with ridiculous presumptions with regard to right and wrong. The common canard that religion makes people more ethical is destroyed by even a cursory examination of the evidence.
Anyroad, I admire your expressed position on the afterlife and this life, but I still feel that it contradicts even a basic, spiritualised acceptance of Christianity.
If you take the religion and agree with all of its tenants then yes it is your sole moral source. That isn't exactly the way I live my life though if I am being perfectly honest with myself.
Why? It offers both pleasure and procreation, so why should one have any stigma attached at all? This is a perfect example of religious views intruding on natural grounds, offering bizarre rationalisations for denying life. Sex, in its pleasurable aspects, is a part of this life; of human life. Denying it in any way, whether through enforced social codes (strict monogamy, prohibition of extramarital sex, etc.) or internalised injunctions (as against masturbation) is, in my view, criminal in itself. Christianity's obscene position on human sexuality (historically speaking) is reason enough to condemn it as immoral and unnatural; as anti-life.
Anti-life would mean not supporting pro-creation, and that is it to be honest. Sex otherwise is just used nowadays to spread STDs and for pleasure outside of pregnancy attempts (of course they are meant for pleasure as well). As someone who masturbates and has had sex outside of marriage, obviously I am not very rigid with this part of some religions including Christianity.
Thanks to Christianity's violent usurpation of Jewish history, sure! But without the inherently-antisemitic theology of supercession, how could it be a 'step backward'? Rather than, say, a step laterally, into a merely different condition?
The Jews still have everything they had before supposedly, nothing is denied to them if they do what they were supposed to do law wise in the first place. I happen to like Pork among other things for instance (it is safe to eat you know). Jesus is a whole different story entirely.
Were your feelings for Jesus restricted to the appreciation for his teaching noted above, I would say that I entirely share them, and that neither of our positions were religious. Were you to restrict yourself to such an appreciation and combine that with "prayer to G-d", I would say that you practiced a thoroughly devolved form of Judaism. But if you combine that appreciation for Jesus' teachings with the belief that Jesus is G-d / the 'son' of G-d, you have stepped thoroughly inside the Christian camp. More so, in fact, than even the Mormons, who call themselves Christians despite a theology that entirely diverges from the fundamental identifying marks of faith. In sum, I will suggest that your stated positions on Jesus and G-d make you a religious Christian, whether or not you identify with a particular denomination or set of beliefs and practices. Simply believing in G-d makes you religious, by definition, and believing specifically in the notion that Jesus is G-d makes you a Christian.
See where I use the pronoun they/them (usually representing Christians) and my personal opinion. I believe in a higher power that wants me to treat others as I would treat myself. That is the extent of my belief, I doubt that is specific enough to be considered a religion.
Ah, but they are only such actions if they can be shown to have occurred, eh? If all they are is stories, then they are not the "actions of an omnipotent G-d", but rather the moral, political, and military tales of an ancient Canaanite culture, with no more veracity as fact than the tales of Odin One-Eye or Gilgamesh.
That would be the faith part, you believe they happened due to faith. The events and the faith are intertwined in this case.
This cuts, again, right to heart of my claim that yours is a religious faith. You, too, have faith in those words, because they are the only source of practical (material) validation for your belief that Jesus is G-d. Clearly the words that appear there about Jesus have some personal significance. If someone showed (somehow) that none of it was accurate, what form then could such a faith as yours take? Can there be a Christ without a Jesus?
I doubt that Jesus specifically said he was the Christ. Even in the New Testament he refers to himself as the Son of Man, and not the Son of God at times. Then there are times where he infers that he is God, but not directly. Is there a possibility that this and everything else in any religion ever conceived period could have been changed? Of course, because it has all passed through the hands of humans.
This is, depending on the reader's point of view, either a very rude assumption about the spiritual feelings of others, or an equally apt description of all non-insane members of a congregation! :laugh: Psychologically speaking, it is entirely possible for everyone to be 'faking it' (whether consciously or--in most cases--not) as a matter of course; or, they could all be feeling the same thing, irrespective of their desire to validate and believe the events in those ancient texts.
I am insane so yeah and I don't give a fuck about being rude in referring to attention whores who speak in tongues, dance in aisles, stand with hands reaching towards the sky, and handle snakes and such. I feel a spiritual connection to my higher power differently in a way that does not necessarily attract attention to myself. It is not unlike me daydreaming actually.
Many people did stand in the way, and Israel won its war of independence without any help from Europe or the US. That fact alone makes it, in hindsight, an inevitability, no? ;D Its prosperity afterward, of course, did depend upon the actions of Europe (such as the French military assistance before and following the Suez Crisis, and the German economic aid that followed Adenauer's decision).
The rise of fascism certainly inspired emigration to Palestine, but this emigration was frequently stopped and had to proceed in small trickles, mostly illegally, for the entire latter period of British control. Even in 1948, on the eve of independence, the British still kept emigrants from landing in Palestine with specially-constructed internment camps on Cyprus. And by making fascism the principle motivator, you ignore the compelling ancient alien case which preceded it by several decades and which provided, by numbers, much more of the emigration to Palestine than came in the later 30s and 40s. The British were far more lax about it in the early years of the Mandate.
Of course the Arabs have a different opinion on whether Britain supported the Jews over the Palestinians.
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/israel_studies/v007/7.3ozacky-lazar.html
Where did the Israelites get their weapons btw?
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol18/no02/findley.html
This has a different view on Israeli immigration. Of course these are the views of Marxists and Arabs. Why would the Israelis only be using guns from U.S. in that era and the Arabs use Soviet weaponry? The U.S. and plenty of other ancient alien supporters have given plenty of aid to Israel. No direct support, more Cold War era stuff.
Oh? They seem to have done a lousy job fighting the Haganah and Irgun in the Mandate era, and certainly in the wars that followed with the IDF. Look at the early history of conflict in Palestine and then tell me that defeat was likely for the ancient aliens. These were motivated, disciplined, well-equipped colonists, and they did as well against the Arabs as European armies had done only a short time before.
Again, how did the colonists get so well equipped and trained? The ancient aliens were backed by the West. The Jews in the area went from 7% land ownership to 55% after they got backing from the West (and the initial borders of Israel once it was made). Arabs get weapons from Russia and the U.S. has supplied them to Israel. France gave Israel its nuclear technology for plants (and of course this lead to their having nukes). This is a big reason why Iran wants nukes in my opinion.
I didn't mean that the people deserved anything, but that the topic--if it is to be started--should be in a thread with an obvious title, which would more easily invite interested parties to join in.
I don't like to start threads actually. I really don't care as this has gone just about as far in departing from its original subject.
This bring us neatly back to the main point made above. I understand that your experience gave you a faith in G-d, but I question the form it has taken. What makes it the Christian G-d that you revere, and not another, if not the culture in which you have been raised and the form of G-d with which you are most familiar?
The higher power related to me in a way that was pretty similar to what Jesus would say and not really the words of another type of figure. The whole do unto others as you would do to yourself thing is funny because I was suicidal at the time. That would be God telling me to kill others like I would kill myself haha. That is what I thought at first. If not for the part where I was told that this was not to be my purpose in life (killing myself), then I might have believed that I should kill others and myself in the same manner (well treat others). I also like the concept of karma, or reaping what you sow (that wasn't a part of the message I received).
What opinions, you ask? What, then, of the assertion that Jesus is G-d and/or the 'son of G-d? That he died for our sins? These are beliefs that you hold, yes?
I like the gesture of the forgiveness that is pretty much it. Well that and how he lived his life for the most part.
I have slept with my head in the toilet many times and it was nothing like praying or med-ita-ting. That is when I am so fucking drunk that I can't bother to get up and walk to my bed after a long puking session.
-
The environment isn't restricted to just the household. If they were raised in a secular household it would be a different story, but you said environment origninally. The thing " such as those raised in a secular environment." is what you used, that implies that the community around them are also not Jewish (same with other family members outside of the immediate family)....
I know what I said. And that word is used quite commonly to mean exactly what I intended: the immediate influences on a person, i.e., their family.
You mistake my meaning. I meant that Judaism penetrates and permeates the identity of those raised in full knowledge of their Jewishness, and that such an identity comes with easily-identifiable cultural markers that have wide circulation amongst co-religionists. Judaism is not only a religion, it is a cultural and national identity. Your reference to Celtic heritage has almost nothing akin to this; being raised with knowledge of Irish roots does not seem to predispose one to particular acts and traits in a similar way.
You think? Then why the hell are close to all of my Irish relatives alcoholics with short tempers? They don't follow their old religion due to Christianity taking over due to St. Patrick, that is all. They are still Irish. There is a cultural and national identity to being Irish, sorry to break it to you. We still eat Corned beef and cabbage in my family for example, some also drink Guiness and Irish Coffee (uses Whiskey) too lol.
Does anyone else want to try and explain the difference here? Anyone?
Look, St Patrick got to the Irish in the 5th fucking century. And the English came pretty quickly thereafter. What is to-day celebrated as "Irish" culture in the US has very little to do with either the historic, pre-colonial Irish civillisation or the way the Irish live to-day. That is, aside from the hard-drinking part! ;D Now, if you can point to where the Irish Community Centre in your town is, show me how much money is being raised to send goods to Ireland, talk about the local youth groups for Irish kids only, and tell me how many people you know that speak Gaelic only, we might have a better comparison. In national terms, you just can't. Small-scale revivals with individuals learning Gaelic are not the same as being raised in a Yiddish-only community, for instance.
Admittedly there are more people of Irish descent in the US than there are people in Ireland, and by a healthy margin! And strong early discrimination here did much to mark the community and keep its pride in origins. But there are, in practice, very few cultural markers than make the Irish, or Irish-descended, entirely different from their neighbours. And there is no self-conscious effort on the part of the Irish-descended to hold themselves apart and preserve their culture, as there is for Jews in the US. I can point to streets in New York where no-one bothers to learn English, for cryin' out loud!
Why? It offers both pleasure and procreation, so why should one have any stigma attached at all? This is a perfect example of religious views intruding on natural grounds, offering bizarre rationalisations for denying life. Sex, in its pleasurable aspects, is a part of this life; of human life. Denying it in any way, whether through enforced social codes (strict monogamy, prohibition of extramarital sex, etc.) or internalised injunctions (as against masturbation) is, in my view, criminal in itself. Christianity's obscene position on human sexuality (historically speaking) is reason enough to condemn it as immoral and unnatural; as anti-life.
Anti-life would mean not supporting pro-creation, and that is it to be honest. Sex otherwise is just used nowadays to spread STDs and for pleasure outside of pregnancy attempts (of course they are meant for pleasure as well). As someone who masturbates and has had sex outside of marriage, obviously I am not very rigid with this part of some religions including Christianity.
No, I intend "anti-life" to mean the denial of anything that is a normal and healthy part of living. If I deny that my nose produces snot, and I take a religious vow never to blow or pick it, I am going to have snot dripping into my beard. That's just stupid! Snot is a normal part of the nose's functioning, and to deny it for religious reasons is to deny a part of normal biology, hence life. The denial of normal sexual function is no different, and is far more socially damaging in my opinion than the disgusting analogy above...
Thanks to Christianity's violent usurpation of Jewish history, sure! But without the inherently-antisemitic theology of supercession, how could it be a 'step backward'? Rather than, say, a step laterally, into a merely different condition?
The Jews still have everything they had before supposedly, nothing is denied to them if they do what they were supposed to do law wise in the first place. I happen to like Pork among other things for instance (it is safe to eat you know). Jesus is a whole different story entirely.
No, they do not "have everything". You, in your Bible, have an "old testament" which was stolen from the Jewish people, and it has been re-interpreted completely to point to your Christ. In effect, the sacred books of Judaism were co-opted, and the Jews told that they did not know how to read their own history and scripture. This is one example only and we could go on and on about the theological and practical effects of supercession. Christianity's declaration of itself as the "true Israel" has justified countless crimes against the Jews, from the Roman era to the Holocaust. Traditional Christian theology, in fact, teaches that the Jews should be kept in a state of perpetual misery as a punishment for rejecting Christ. This view is kept alive by millions. Christian theology in fact makes little sense if the Jews are not treated as inferiors.
Of course the Arabs have a different opinion on whether Britain supported the Jews over the Palestinians....
Frequently the Arab view is as distorted as the Israeli one. But I am not in any way denying that the ancient aliens used European and American weapons. They were a colonial force, after all! But the European nations were not involved in the war for independence. Take that as you will. It makes little sense to argue about this, as I am not exactly a ancient alien myself! My perspective is closer that expressed in Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall.
Oh? They seem to have done a lousy job fighting the Haganah and Irgun in the Mandate era, and certainly in the wars that followed with the IDF. Look at the early history of conflict in Palestine and then tell me that defeat was likely for the ancient aliens. These were motivated, disciplined, well-equipped colonists, and they did as well against the Arabs as European armies had done only a short time before.
Again, how did the colonists get so well equipped and trained? The ancient aliens were backed by the West. The Jews in the area went from 7% land ownership to 55% after they got backing from the West (and the initial borders of Israel once it was made). Arabs get weapons from Russia and the U.S. has supplied them to Israel.
The colonists "got so well equipped" because many of them were Europeans and Americans! As an analogy, how did the Boers get so much better equipped than the Zulus? It wasn't because the Dutch were arming them! And anyway, the ancient aliens (well, most of them) voted to accept the UN partition, just as they had voted to accept the earlier Peel plan as well. Whether or not they would have been content with a smaller state is a matter of debate; the Irgun folks certainly would not have. But regardless, they ended up with more territory when the Palestinians revolted rather than accept a Jewish state, and the Arab armies--with no particular interest in the Palestinians themselves--decided to invade. Training is another issue where the European roots of the ancient aliens was critical. They did not need training from the European armies, because they were Europeans! Look at the history of the IDF's precursors. They were as often used against the British as against the Arabs.
France gave Israel its nuclear technology for plants (and of course this lead to their having nukes). This is a big reason why Iran wants nukes in my opinion.
I figure that Iran wants nuclear weapons in order to, a) deter a Western invasion, and b) to dominate the region's politics. This latter is why Egypt and Saudi Arabia are discussing going nuclear, so that a Shia theocracy is not the overbearing regional superpower. But again, this is a topic best entered elsewhere.
What opinions, you ask? What, then, of the assertion that Jesus is G-d and/or the 'son of G-d? That he died for our sins? These are beliefs that you hold, yes?
I like the gesture of the forgiveness that is pretty much it. Well that and how he lived his life for the most part.
Are you saying that this is not your opinion, then? : Jesus in mortal form dying without sin was the entire point of his sacrifice. It was God in mortal human form dying without sin and still being seperated from the Father that made it a sacrifice no matter how long the period of time spent in hell supposedly Christ went through. Right before his death, Jesus was flooded with all of the sins made by humanity then and in the future. That was his whole point of existence. After his death he paid their punishment. That is the reason people do not have to suffer in hell but are able to enter heaven. His suffering was both on earth and after his death in hell, the pain he felt has nothing to do with him seeking pleasure.
-
I know what I said. And that word is used quite commonly to mean exactly what I intended: the immediate influences on a person, i.e., their family.
I would personally use the term secular household, not environment. I get what you meant though, it seems natural enough to go towards the religion of your nation.
Does anyone else want to try and explain the difference here? Anyone?
Look, St Patrick got to the Irish in the 5th fucking century. And the English came pretty quickly thereafter. What is to-day celebrated as "Irish" culture in the US has very little to do with either the historic, pre-colonial Irish civillisation or the way the Irish live to-day. That is, aside from the hard-drinking part! ;D Now, if you can point to where the Irish Community Centre in your town is, show me how much money is being raised to send goods to Ireland, talk about the local youth groups for Irish kids only, and tell me how many people you know that speak Gaelic only, we might have a better comparison. In national terms, you just can't. Small-scale revivals with individuals learning Gaelic are not the same as being raised in a Yiddish-only community, for instance.
Admittedly there are more people of Irish descent in the US than there are people in Ireland, and by a healthy margin! And strong early discrimination here did much to mark the community and keep its pride in origins. But there are, in practice, very few cultural markers than make the Irish, or Irish-descended, entirely different from their neighbours. And there is no self-conscious effort on the part of the Irish-descended to hold themselves apart and preserve their culture, as there is for Jews in the US. I can point to streets in New York where no-one bothers to learn English, for cryin' out loud!
I see plenty of Irish pubs around here actually and there is a club for people with Irish bloodlines. The JCA (Jewish Community Alliance) here is attached to a synagogue. The maiin reason why the Jewish culture has survived is because its people are tight knit due to the religion and their connection with it regardless of whether they believe or not. Their is no common religion amongst only Irish people, therefore they have no connection so to speak in that regard. Hell even the people who run some of the Irish pubs here aren't even fucking Irish. Go to Boston, Massachusetts and my father's old neighborhood and you will see a different thing entirely regarding Irish people.
No, I intend "anti-life" to mean the denial of anything that is a normal and healthy part of living. If I deny that my nose produces snot, and I take a religious vow never to blow or pick it, I am going to have snot dripping into my beard. That's just stupid! Snot is a normal part of the nose's functioning, and to deny it for religious reasons is to deny a part of normal biology, hence life. The denial of normal sexual function is no different, and is far more socially damaging in my opinion than the disgusting analogy above...
Except that snot is waste and sperm is produced for fertilizing the female egg. I don't agree with the Bible's stance on sex, but it is what it is. This thread wasn't asking for my personal opinion afterall.
No, they do not "have everything". You, in your Bible, have an "old testament" which was stolen from the Jewish people, and it has been re-interpreted completely to point to your Christ. In effect, the sacred books of Judaism were co-opted, and the Jews told that they did not know how to read their own history and scripture. This is one example only and we could go on and on about the theological and practical effects of supercession. Christianity's declaration of itself as the "true Israel" has justified countless crimes against the Jews, from the Roman era to the Holocaust. Traditional Christian theology, in fact, teaches that the Jews should be kept in a state of perpetual misery as a punishment for rejecting Christ. This view is kept alive by millions. Christian theology in fact makes little sense if the Jews are not treated as inferiors.
The Jews are still God's people from what I read of what Jesus said on the matter. I really hear nothing about what should be done with or to the Jews in regard to religion in churches. Jews are always referred to as God's chosen people. I really don't see where they lose anything other than not going to heaven for the same reason as everyone else. If you don't believe in Christianity then that doesn't matter anyways.
Frequently the Arab view is as distorted as the Israeli one. But I am not in any way denying that the ancient aliens used European and American weapons. They were a colonial force, after all! But the European nations were not involved in the war for independence. Take that as you will. It makes little sense to argue about this, as I am not exactly a ancient alien myself! My perspective is closer that expressed in Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall.
They didn't send troops, but aid and weapons are seen as support lol.
The colonists "got so well equipped" because many of them were Europeans and Americans! As an analogy, how did the Boers get so much better equipped than the Zulus? It wasn't because the Dutch were arming them! And anyway, the ancient aliens (well, most of them) voted to accept the UN partition, just as they had voted to accept the earlier Peel plan as well. Whether or not they would have been content with a smaller state is a matter of debate; the Irgun folks certainly would not have. But regardless, they ended up with more territory when the Palestinians revolted rather than accept a Jewish state, and the Arab armies--with no particular interest in the Palestinians themselves--decided to invade. Training is another issue where the European roots of the ancient aliens was critical. They did not need training from the European armies, because they were Europeans! Look at the history of the IDF's precursors. They were as often used against the British as against the Arabs.
Whoever gets the superior technology gets the best support and that is why they won whatever war they were fighting. More cold war crap.
I figure that Iran wants nuclear weapons in order to, a) deter a Western invasion, and b) to dominate the region's politics. This latter is why Egypt and Saudi Arabia are discussing going nuclear, so that a Shia theocracy is not the overbearing regional superpower. But again, this is a topic best entered elsewhere.
Israel is the only enemy that Iran would have a delivery system with range to hit if they had nukes. The whole reason Hezbollah exists is due to Lebanon's conflict with Israel lol. That is an organization paid for by the Iranian government. National pride is a factor, but the U.S. being in Iraq has hastened their want of nukes. Iran has wanted more weaponry in the past just to feed the campaign against Israel they have Hezbollah running. That has been going on for a long time.
Are you saying that this is not your opinion, then? :
That is the point to why Jesus died on the cross as far as what the Bible says. This was in context with Calandale's post regarding Jesus dying and feeling pain without sexual love having ever been present. As a human that may or may not have ever had sex (the Bible doesn't say that Jesus had sex, so it is assumed he did not), of course he felt suffering on the cross. That post was pretty much what I interpret from the Bible's story of Jesus being crucified. It isn't my opinion on the matter because obviously I was not a first hand witness, nevermind a second hand one. There is some of my opinion in this thread, but most of it deals with me wanting to kill everyone regardless of faith or other factors. That really isn't Christian at all lol. The voice I heard did not identify itself as Jesus, nor did it say anything about whether he died for our sins or whatever. That still is what the Bible says. The point of the thread was what the Bible says in regards to Homosexuality, I just started with my interpretations on other matters as they came up. If I believed everything I read then I guess it would be my opinion. Just like if I post some shit I quoted in the Quran and my interpretation of that quote, does it make it my opinion as well? It is how I interpret what I read. Kind of like when I try to make sense of what Randy or someone else types.
-
No, I intend "anti-life" to mean the denial of anything that is a normal and healthy part of living. If I deny that my nose produces snot, and I take a religious vow never to blow or pick it, I am going to have snot dripping into my beard. That's just stupid! Snot is a normal part of the nose's functioning, and to deny it for religious reasons is to deny a part of normal biology, hence life. The denial of normal sexual function is no different, and is far more socially damaging in my opinion than the disgusting analogy above...
Except that snot is waste and sperm is produced for fertilizing the female egg. I don't agree with the Bible's stance on sex, but it is what it is. This thread wasn't asking for my personal opinion afterall.
Snot is no more a waste product than blood is! And it is only the Christian obsession with procreation that drives your rationale here, not any sense of the facts in my opinion.
No, they do not "have everything". You, in your Bible, have an "old testament" which was stolen from the Jewish people, and it has been re-interpreted completely to point to your Christ. In effect, the sacred books of Judaism were co-opted, and the Jews told that they did not know how to read their own history and scripture. This is one example only and we could go on and on about the theological and practical effects of supercession. Christianity's declaration of itself as the "true Israel" has justified countless crimes against the Jews, from the Roman era to the Holocaust. Traditional Christian theology, in fact, teaches that the Jews should be kept in a state of perpetual misery as a punishment for rejecting Christ. This view is kept alive by millions. Christian theology in fact makes little sense if the Jews are not treated as inferiors.
The Jews are still God's people from what I read of what Jesus said on the matter. I really hear nothing about what should be done with or to the Jews in regard to religion in churches. Jews are always referred to as God's chosen people. I really don't see where they lose anything other than not going to heaven for the same reason as everyone else. If you don't believe in Christianity then that doesn't matter anyways.
Okay, I just don't have time to delve into the history of Christian-Jewish relations, nor to elucidate the practical implications of orthodox Christian theology. Pick up a simple book like Christian Antisemitism by William Nicholls as a good starting point.
-
Except that snot is waste and sperm is produced for fertilizing the female egg. I don't agree with the Bible's stance on sex, but it is what it is. This thread wasn't asking for my personal opinion afterall.
Snot is no more a waste product than blood is! And it is only the Christian obsession with procreation that drives your rationale here, not any sense of the facts in my opinion.
Ugh that is what the Bible says, not necessarily how I feel about sex. Blood is something we need a certain amount of to continue living lol... You do not need snot in your body to survive. Without sperm the human race would not exist, we couldn't procreate. Would have to resort to cloning and that isn't reliable enough. That being said I enjoy sex too much to give it up just because the Bible says it is wrong lol. Anyways.
Okay, I just don't have time to delve into the history of Christian-Jewish relations, nor to elucidate the practical implications of orthodox Christian theology. Pick up a simple book like Christian Antisemitism by William Nicholls as a good starting point.
Maybe when I am done reading all the books I have to read this semester.
-
Alex
If the Jews where still God's People they would still be worshiping in the Temple. That is apart of the Old Covenant. We would have to worship in the Temple too. The Romans destroyed the Temple in 70CE. Even today there is no Temple to worship at it is a Mosque on the site were the Temple was at. Even when Israel became a nation in 1948 They did not control Jerusalem until 1967 even then they did not built the Temple again.
The Jews where exiled From Babylon for 70 years then rebuilt the Temple. Even God would not exile the Jews for almost 2000 years if they where still His Choosen People.
-
Jews are totally the chosen people. chosen to be hot.
-
I want a horny little Jewish Princess (http://globalia.net/donlope/fz/lyrics/Sheik_Yerbouti.html#Princess)
-
Even God would not exile the Jews for almost 2000 years if they where still His Choosen People.
Is this really any different than saying,
"G-d would not make the Christians wait 2000 years for the Second Coming if they were really His Chosen People"...?
-
I believe there never is an end
God gave up this world its people long ago
Why she's never there I still don't understand
-
Even God would not exile the Jews for almost 2000 years if they where still His Choosen People.
Is this really any different than saying,
"G-d would not make the Christians wait 2000 years for the Second Coming if they were really His Chosen People"...?
God has let this go on for a reason. Satan is the one that has issues with God. We have become apart of it because of Adam and Eve put Us in these issues between God and Satan. We have the ability to choose. Not even the Angels of Heaven or Demons of Hell can even yet truly understand that. God and Satan have been at odds about this and will yet be settled in time. Even We are apart of it and have Our Free Will to choose one or the other. We are All apart of this Great Issue between God and Satan even if We do not want to be.
This issue is not about Religions it about Spirituality. What We All do with it as a individual. In certain way We are greater than the Angels or Demons because this Issue is about Understanding good and bad or Good and Evil. We lost Our Perfection years ago so it hard for Us even to Understand even now today.
We are the Freest for We can choose what We want to do. That ability has gotten Us in a lot of trouble and has cause a lot of trouble for Us in the end. We are the freest between the Angels and Demons, God and Satan. Because We all have this Issue before Us and have become apart of this Great Issue Altogether. It is greater than All the Knowledge and Understandings of Mankind today. Though We are apart of it it has become apart of Us, even if We like it or not.
All the Religions do nothing for they teach religions not truly spirituality that is why We have problems Understanding it All in the end. Though We are driven in Our own way to do so.
Ultimately that is the Truth. We make or not it is up to us to decide for Ourselves as a Individual.
-
God punishes those who actually USE free will,
with the greatest of all possible punishments.
Now, even Christian justice systems recognize
coercion as a mitigating circumstance, and what
greater coercion is there than eternal damnation?
Satan was punished for having free will. Only those
in slavery escape the malicious wrath of the tyrant.
-
the bible was changed. it wasn't a load of bullshit before. plus it's been misunderstood and crappily translated.
-
Interesting thread.
Thanks, guest, for pointing me to it.
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
Vortex was right. Lev.20:13 is clearly opposed to male homosexuality and lesbo porn is hot. I don't get the Gays that try to reinterpret the Bible to suit themselves. They sound as fucked up to me as the Christians who try to wiggle out of a 6 day creation by reasoning that "God's day is much longer than ours", WTF? God supposedly created the Sun and Earth and defined a day as 24 hours. More "do as I say, not as I do" and "might is right" happy horse shit.
And, to illustrate that lesbo porn is hot. http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html (http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html)
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
Vortex was right. Lev.20:13 is clearly opposed to male homosexuality and lesbo porn is hot. I don't get the Gays that try to reinterpret the Bible to suit themselves. They sound as fucked up to me as the Christians who try to wiggle out of a 6 day creation by reasoning that "God's day is much longer than ours", WTF? God supposedly created the Sun and Earth and defined a day as 24 hours. More "do as I say, not as I do" and "might is right" happy horse shit.
And, to illustrate that lesbo porn is hot. http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html (http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html)
Amen! You got it spot on.
I hate people who reinterpret the Bible to suit their own desires and emotions.
-
The Christians that quote Leviticus 18:22 must want to also stone unruly children and sell women as slaves. (oldest trick in the book to end that argument.)
Christianity: "Believe what I say or I will hurt you".
-
Old Covenant, New Covenant. Homosexuality is reconfirmed in the New Testament as an abomination.
That's one argument clever Christians will use to counter that one.
-
Old Covenant, New Covenant. Homosexuality is reconfirmed in the New Testament as an abomination.
That's one argument clever Christians will use to counter that one.
Where exactly? I knew it was, but could never figure out what verse in which it was stated.
-
For example, the following passage:
Romans 1: 24-27
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
-
lol
sexually frustrated religious people :laugh:
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
Vortex was right. Lev.20:13 is clearly opposed to male homosexuality and lesbo porn is hot. I don't get the Gays that try to reinterpret the Bible to suit themselves. They sound as fucked up to me as the Christians who try to wiggle out of a 6 day creation by reasoning that "God's day is much longer than ours", WTF? God supposedly created the Sun and Earth and defined a day as 24 hours. More "do as I say, not as I do" and "might is right" happy horse shit.
And, to illustrate that lesbo porn is hot. http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html (http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html)
Why are you posting links to lesbian hamster porn? :dunno:
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
Vortex was right. Lev.20:13 is clearly opposed to male homosexuality and lesbo porn is hot. I don't get the Gays that try to reinterpret the Bible to suit themselves. They sound as fucked up to me as the Christians who try to wiggle out of a 6 day creation by reasoning that "God's day is much longer than ours", WTF? God supposedly created the Sun and Earth and defined a day as 24 hours. More "do as I say, not as I do" and "might is right" happy horse shit.
And, to illustrate that lesbo porn is hot. http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html (http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html)
Why are you posting links to lesbian hamster porn? :dunno:
my security wont allow that page.....must be some deviant cookies there
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
Vortex was right. Lev.20:13 is clearly opposed to male homosexuality and lesbo porn is hot. I don't get the Gays that try to reinterpret the Bible to suit themselves. They sound as fucked up to me as the Christians who try to wiggle out of a 6 day creation by reasoning that "God's day is much longer than ours", WTF? God supposedly created the Sun and Earth and defined a day as 24 hours. More "do as I say, not as I do" and "might is right" happy horse shit.
And, to illustrate that lesbo porn is hot. http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html (http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html)
Why are you posting links to lesbian hamster porn? :dunno:
my security wont allow that page.....must be some deviant cookies there
They have some good cookies there :zoinks:
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldohu8AABI1qb9as5o1_500.jpg)
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
Vortex was right. Lev.20:13 is clearly opposed to male homosexuality and lesbo porn is hot. I don't get the Gays that try to reinterpret the Bible to suit themselves. They sound as fucked up to me as the Christians who try to wiggle out of a 6 day creation by reasoning that "God's day is much longer than ours", WTF? God supposedly created the Sun and Earth and defined a day as 24 hours. More "do as I say, not as I do" and "might is right" happy horse shit.
And, to illustrate that lesbo porn is hot. http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html (http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html)
Why are you posting links to lesbian hamster porn? :dunno:
It is completely normal human females in the video. The site is xhamster which BTW has put a Santa hat on their hamster mascot to celebrate the season. Stop being a butthead missy. :police:
-
I just have this vision of Moses talking to god on Mt. Sinai.
God:" And if a man lie with a man he shall be put to death!"
Moses: "Ok.So what about two women who have sex? Shouldn't we kill them too?"
God: "What the hell are you,Moses, some kind of fag? That shit's HOT!"
Vortex was right. Lev.20:13 is clearly opposed to male homosexuality and lesbo porn is hot. I don't get the Gays that try to reinterpret the Bible to suit themselves. They sound as fucked up to me as the Christians who try to wiggle out of a 6 day creation by reasoning that "God's day is much longer than ours", WTF? God supposedly created the Sun and Earth and defined a day as 24 hours. More "do as I say, not as I do" and "might is right" happy horse shit.
And, to illustrate that lesbo porn is hot. http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html (http://xhamster.com/movies/166528/lesbian_police_women.html)
Why are you posting links to lesbian hamster porn? :dunno:
my security wont allow that page.....must be some deviant cookies there
They have some good cookies there :zoinks:
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldohu8AABI1qb9as5o1_500.jpg)
Thank god I'm on a diet! :runaway:
-
Don't make hamster accusations and wobble away CBC! Watch the vid and you will see there are no rodents in it at all. ::)
-
Don't make hamster accusations and wobble away CBC! Watch the vid and you will see there are no rodents in it at all. ::)
I have no intention of watching hamster sex or muskrat love or any such thing! :M
-
Don't make hamster accusations and wobble away CBC! Watch the vid and you will see there are no rodents in it at all. ::)
I have no intention of watching hamster sex or muskrat love or any such thing! :M
Leave it to you to bring degenerate shit like Captain and Tennielle into a discussion about two policewomen bonding on the job. :hahaha:
-
Don't make hamster accusations and wobble away CBC! Watch the vid and you will see there are no rodents in it at all. ::)
I have no intention of watching hamster sex or muskrat love or any such thing! :M
Leave it to you to bring degenerate shit like Captain and Tennielle into a discussion about two policewomen bonding on the job. :hahaha:
So now they're lesbian hamster cops?! Who writes this shit anyway? :facepalm2:
-
Who writes this shit anyway? :facepalm2:
It wasn't Dickens! :laugh:
-
Who writes this shit anyway? :facepalm2:
It wasn't Dickens! :laugh:
Who knows, maybe he did write smut back in the day, to pay the bills! :toporly:
-
Who writes this shit anyway? :facepalm2:
It wasn't Dickens! :laugh:
Who knows, maybe he did write smut back in the day, to pay the bills! :toporly:
:asthing: :hahaha:
-
Who writes this shit anyway? :facepalm2:
It wasn't Dickens! :laugh:
Who knows, maybe he did write smut back in the day, to pay the bills! :toporly:
:asthing: :hahaha:
What?! He could have used an alias. A man's got to eat. :dunno:
-
Don't make hamster accusations and wobble away CBC! Watch the vid and you will see there are no rodents in it at all. ::)
I have no intention of watching hamster sex or muskrat love or any such thing! :M
Leave it to you to bring degenerate shit like Captain and Tennielle into a discussion about two policewomen bonding on the job. :hahaha:
:lol:
Captain and Tennielle!!!
-
Don't make hamster accusations and wobble away CBC! Watch the vid and you will see there are no rodents in it at all. ::)
I have no intention of watching hamster sex or muskrat love or any such thing! :M
Leave it to you to bring degenerate shit like Captain and Tennielle into a discussion about two policewomen bonding on the job. :hahaha:
:lol:
Captain and Tennielle!!!
They are PPK's favorite recording artists of all time! :tard: