Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Owlswing on August 04, 2015, 12:06:33 PM
-
From Geoge Takei ( Admiral Sulu).
http://www.wittyfeed.com/story/6627/4/Things-Banned-By-The-Bible-But-We-Do-Them-Anyway-
-
I counted 5
-
Ten for me.
-
I made it up to 8 (assuming that having a Paul Daniels' Magic kit as a child counts as 'practicing magic').
-
I made it up to 8 (assuming that having a Paul Daniels' Magic kit as a child counts as 'practicing magic').
Oh Paul Daniels could do magic! He could make himself 11 inches taller by standing on his wallet!
-
I hit !!.
Just, PLEASE, do not ask me which ones!
-
Depends, how many points for shagging your sister while pissed, shouting screw you, dad, and eating a bacon and monkfish sandwich?
-
Depends, how many points for shagging your sister while pissed, shouting screw you, dad, and eating a bacon and monkfish sandwich?
Bugger the points - you deserve a bloody medal if you can do all those at the same time!
-
A thread illustrating the atheists' obsession with religion. Try weaning yourself off it, since you don't even believe any of it. I'm sure you wives/husbands/partners are worried about you! :)
-
A thread illustrating the atheists' obsession with religion. Try weaning yourself off it, since you don't even believe any of it. I'm sure you wives/husbands/partners are worried about you! :)
Which atheists?
-
A thread illustrating the atheists' obsession with religion. Try weaning yourself off it, since you don't even believe any of it. I'm sure you wives/husbands/partners are worried about you! :)
Which atheists?
All of them.
All those on this forum: I don't know all the rest!
-
A thread illustrating the atheists' obsession with religion. Try weaning yourself off it, since you don't even believe any of it. I'm sure you wives/husbands/partners are worried about you! :)
Which atheists?
All of them.
Ye Gods!
-
From Geoge Takei ( Admiral Sulu).
http://www.wittyfeed.com/story/6627/4/Things-Banned-By-The-Bible-But-We-Do-Them-Anyway-
I wonder why this isn't on the Jewish thread, as the vast majority of the 'bans' that exist in the Bible are in the Old Testament. I suppose it might also have been in a 'Health'-related section if we had one.
-
From Geoge Takei ( Admiral Sulu).
http://www.wittyfeed.com/story/6627/4/Things-Banned-By-The-Bible-But-We-Do-Them-Anyway-
Nah, not really a Takei fan.
More Walter Koenig, really.
-
From Geoge Takei ( Admiral Sulu).
http://www.wittyfeed.com/story/6627/4/Things-Banned-By-The-Bible-But-We-Do-Them-Anyway-
I wonder why this isn't on the Jewish thread, as the vast majority of the 'bans' that exist in the Bible are in the Old Testament.
So the God who made the prohibitions listed in the Old Testament is not the God of the Christians?
-
A thread illustrating the atheists' obsession with religion. Try weaning yourself off it, since you don't even believe any of it. I'm sure you wives/husbands/partners are worried about you! :)
Which atheists?
That's a trick question, we all know that deep down we really believe, we just think it's cool to get tattoos, worship satan whilst claiming we don't believe in him either, live without superstitions and be nice to people because we're nice, not because we're being judged...
O.
-
So the God who made the prohibitions listed in the Old Testament is not the God of the Christians?
I wondered when someone would make this schoolboy error, Matt.
As has been discussed on at least two other threads recently, Jesus pointed out that he had come to fulfill the law. In other words, he had come - as God in human form - to make the law unnecessary by instigating a completely different approach to life (and before you make any comments about how unsuccessful that was, I will happily acknowledge that the church has often failed to live up to the standards Jesus set for us).
The Jewish people, for whom the original law was developed, remain under its jurisdiction for as long as they choose to ignore/dispute the Messiahship of Jesus. Therefore, it ios they who you ought to be addressing the question in the OP. In a sense, so does everyone else, since law only exists to control or manage human failing.
-
So fulfilling something and making that same thing unnecessary are synonymous according to you, then?
-
So the God who made the prohibitions listed in the Old Testament is not the God of the Christians?
I wondered when someone would make this schoolboy error, Matt.
As has been discussed on at least two other threads recently, Jesus pointed out that he had come to fulfill the law. In other words, he had come - as God in human form - to make the law unnecessary by instigating a completely different approach to life (and before you make any comments about how unsuccessful that was, I will happily acknowledge that the church has often failed to live up to the standards Jesus set for us).
The Jewish people, for whom the original law was developed, remain under its jurisdiction for as long as they choose to ignore/dispute the Messiahship of Jesus. Therefore, it ios they who you ought to be addressing the question in the OP. In a sense, so does everyone else, since law only exists to control or manage human failing.
I will agree with this duplicitous load of old rubbish when the combined OT and NT Bible is separated into two separate books and the Christian Church only uses the NT part of it and disowns the OT.
Otherwise your comment/explanation is wriggling to get out of something that you can't live with - the fact that the Bible is so full of contradictions as to make it open to more interpretations than there are stars ij the universe, thus ewnnabling the Christian Churches to make it say just about anything it wants it to - except order pizza and ice-cream of course.
Now watch some smarty-pants aome along and show that, in fact, it can do just that.
-
I will agree with this duplicitous load of old rubbish when the combined OT and NT Bible is separated into two separate books and the Christian Church only uses the NT part of it and disowns the OT.
How can anyone disown something that they don't own, Matt? The Old Testament obviously helps to understand the context in which Jesus was teaching, and the background to the lives of the Jewish people he taught, but by definition, a New Covenant replaces an Old one.
Otherwise your comment/explanation is wriggling to get out of something that you can't live with - the fact that the Bible is so full of contradictions as to make it open to more interpretations than there are stars ij the universe, thus ewnnabling the Christian Churches to make it say just about anything it wants it to - except order pizza and ice-cream of course.
Why would I, or Christians as a whole, be trying to wriggle out of something that we're not in? If anything, all the assertions along these lines (and they've been doing the rounds for donkeys' years) are simoly those who want to diss Christianity having to scrabble around for some ideas that they can hang their complaints on.
-
I will agree with this duplicitous load of old rubbish when the combined OT and NT Bible is separated into two separate books and the Christian Church only uses the NT part of it and disowns the OT.
How can anyone disown something that they don't own, Matt? The Old Testament obviously helps to understand the context in which Jesus was teaching, and the background to the lives of the Jewish people he taught, but by definition, a New Covenant replaces an Old one.
Otherwise your comment/explanation is wriggling to get out of something that you can't live with - the fact that the Bible is so full of contradictions as to make it open to more interpretations than there are stars ij the universe, thus ewnnabling the Christian Churches to make it say just about anything it wants it to - except order pizza and ice-cream of course.
Why would I, or Christians as a whole, be trying to wriggle out of something that we're not in? If anything, all the assertions along these lines (and they've been doing the rounds for donkeys' years) are simoly those who want to diss Christianity having to scrabble around for some ideas that they can hang their complaints on.
Hey ho! I'm off to Jerusalem to discuss this subject with the Wailing Wall - I'll get more sense out of that than any Christian on this Forum!
-
"Then said he, Lo, I came to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Hebrews 10:9
-
Hey ho! I'm off to Jerusalem to discuss this subject with the Wailing Wall - I'll get more sense out of that than any Christian on this Forum!
WEell, since the Jews still believe themselves under the thrall of the Old Testament laws, discussing it with them would actually be a remarkably clever thing to do, and was what I suggested in my very first post on the thread.
-
Hey ho! I'm off to Jerusalem to discuss this subject with the Wailing Wall - I'll get more sense out of that than any Christian on this Forum!
WEell, since the Jews still believe themselves under the thrall of the Old Testament laws, discussing it with them would actually be a remarkably clever thing to do, and was what I suggested in my very first post on the thread.
Let's face it Hope, when discussing talking about the negatives/contradictions of Christian beliefs and their reliance on the Bible, I could choose any wall, the Great Wall of Chins, Hadrian's Wall, Wall Street, the Berlin Wall - every single one would give a more reasoned argument that you and your associates.
Thankfully, I have just picked up the mail and have got some work to do, so I will not have time to read your nonsense arguments for at least twelve hours.
Ah Peace!
-
I could choose any wall, the Great Wall of Chins,
Because, as Churchill used to say, "Jaw jaw is better than war war"?
-
Just out of idle interest am I still at the top of the league table in scoring ten out of fourteen?
-
Way higher than me, but number 11 might be one of my definitions
-
Way higher than me
Well ... I've been around the block, you know.
-
Only 4!
I need to do more to remain an evil atheist
-
Only 4!
I need to do more to remain an evil atheist
http://img3i.spoki.tvnet.lv/upload/articles/15/155817/images/Son-I-am-disappoint-6.jpg
-
Let's face it Hope, when discussing talking about the negatives/contradictions of Christian beliefs and their reliance on the Bible, I could choose any wall, the Great Wall of Chins, Hadrian's Wall, Wall Street, the Berlin Wall - every single one would give a more reasoned argument that you and your associates.
Ah Peace!
Sorry for speaking, Matt. :P
It was you who started this thread; if you don't want to hear people's opinions about the subject, why did you start it? Burying your head in the theological sand won't stop the reality about Christianity's relationship with the laws of the Jews being what I have outlined.
-
Let's face it Hope, when discussing talking about the negatives/contradictions of Christian beliefs and their reliance on the Bible, I could choose any wall, the Great Wall of Chins, Hadrian's Wall, Wall Street, the Berlin Wall - every single one would give a more reasoned argument that you and your associates.
Ah Peace!
Sorry for speaking, Matt. :P
It was you who started this thread; if you don't want to hear people's opinions about the subject, why did you start it? Burying your head in the theological sand won't stop the reality about Christianity's relationship with the laws of the Jews being what I have outlined.
It is not your "speaking" that is the problem, Hope, that is what this forum is for!
It is the total rubbish that you speak that is the problem; along with your total complete and utter inability to accept and form of criticism of Christianit, or that there can be the slightest thing about Christianity that might be unacceptable to people who are not Christian, or even to some Christians other than you, or that you make yourself look like a right fool when you try to deny the undeniable, and your experience of just about anything in the world and what you haven't experienced you know all about from study somewhere or other.
You are welcome to keep posting your rubbish and nonsense, your experiences, your opinions, your encylopaediac knowledge of absolutely everything, just do not expect me to read it with any kind of wonder at your godlike superiority to anyone else on the board or to believe any more than about a tenth of it.
You are going to find that being the superior being is a ruddy lonely existence. Enjoy and farewell!
-
It is not your "speaking" that is the problem, Hope, that is what this forum is for!
It is the total rubbish that you speak that is the problem
The forum doesn't do that karma applause thingy business any more, does it? Shame.
-
Just out of idle interest am I still at the top of the league table in scoring ten out of fourteen?
Sorry ol' buddy but I beat you by one!
Considering the ones I didn't tick, I don't really think either of us is going to get beaten.
-
I was in danger of looking like a believer, briefly, but then came 'Cursing your Parents' and I was safe... peaked at 3, though.
If only sacrificing animals and eating babies - you know, good old-fashioned atheist hobbies - were listed...
O.
-
I can't make the link work on my iPad. :(
-
I can't make the link work on my iPad. :(
Maybe you are the lucky one?
-
It is the total rubbish that you speak that is the problem; along with your total complete and utter inability to accept and form of criticism of Christianit, ...
Shows how badly you read, Matt. I and other Christians here regularly accept that the Church has often failed in its role as witness to God's love for the world and that individual Christians haven't always lived up to the standards that Christ set out within his teaching. Similarly, I am quite happy to hear criticism of Christianity, except for when it is so blatantly wrong that it is necessary to correct the author's errors and - perhaps - lack of understanding or knowledge.
... or that there can be the slightest thing about Christianity that might be unacceptable to people who are not Christian, or even to some Christians other than you, or that you make yourself look like a right fool when you try to deny the undeniable, and your experience of just about anything in the world and what you haven't experienced you know all about from study somewhere or other.
I think the problem with this criticism is that often the claims that you are alluding to aren't even part of my thinking. There are, for instance, some here who will attempt to tell me and other Christians what we believe and think even though those beliefs and thoughts are probably as far from reality as one can get. Think, for instance, about the well-known 'Yuk factor' argument within homosexuality threads.
You are welcome to keep posting your rubbish and nonsense, your experiences, your opinions, your encylopaediac knowledge of absolutely everything, just do not expect me to read it with any kind of wonder at your godlike superiority to anyone else on the board or to believe any more than about a tenth of it.
Sorry to disappoint you, but a lot of what I post is no more than restatement of ideas and opinions that have been expressed by others on the forum. There is relatively little that is exclusive to me.
-
Good replies BUT how much of what we think is 'understanding' is not just acceptance?
You know as well as I do there are certain ones here who give off such an air, bit stinky I know, of self superiority that Jesus must 'turn in His grave'.
Nick
-
Good replies BUT how much of what we think is 'understanding' is not just acceptance?
You know as well as I do there are certain ones here who give off such an air, bit stinky I know, of self superiority that Jesus must 'turn in His grave'.
Nick
He doesn't have one, remember, he went home to Daddy!
-
Depends, how many points for ....eating a bacon and monkfish sandwich?
Is there a touch of antisemitism about this thread?
-
Depends, how many points for ....eating a bacon and monkfish sandwich?
Is there a touch of antisemitism about this thread?
Possibly; but more immature and cheap, as in M29.
-
your total complete and utter inability to accept and form of criticism of Christianit, or that there can be the slightest thing about Christianity that might be unacceptable to people who are not Christian,
Christianity? Isn't this thread about Judaism?
-
Depends, how many points for ....eating a bacon and monkfish sandwich?
Is there a touch of antisemitism about this thread?
Where? Specifically.
-
your total complete and utter inability to accept and form of criticism of Christianit, or that there can be the slightest thing about Christianity that might be unacceptable to people who are not Christian,
Christianity? Isn't this thread about Judaism?
No - it is about the Christian Bible. Not the Torah!
-
No - it is about the Christian Bible. Not the Torah!
You say its about the Christian Bible, yet all the examples you have given are from the Jewish Bible.
-
Technically there's no such thing as the Christian Bible.
It should be..... Torah Part 2 with ADDENDAS
Nick
-
Technically there's no such thing as the Christian Bible.
It should be..... Torah Part 2 with ADDENDAS
Nick
Sorry, Nick, but the New Testament is the Christian Bible. Christianity is not Judaism, although it developed out of it, because Jewish religious law is not applicable to Christians, however much some here would like it to.
-
OK So was Jesus a Christian or a Jew ?!?!?!?
-
OK So was Jesus a Christian or a Jew ?!?!?!?
Not quite sure what the relevance of this is to the issue. Perhaps you could explain your thinking.
-
Depends, how many points for ....eating a bacon and monkfish sandwich?
Is there a touch of antisemitism about this thread?
No. Thanks for asking.
O.
-
No. Thanks for asking.
I'm not sure, O. Matt has started a thread that seems to be antagonistic to many Jewish religous laws. He has tried to hide that fact by appearing to ask people who may well not be Jewish whether they do any of the things that he refers to, but it is clearly a criticism of Jewish religious law.
-
Matt isn't being antisemitic, not least because he's Jewish by ancestry. If it's in the OT then it is valid to point out that many (most?) Christians ignore the finer points of Judaic law because it 'doesn't apply' yet quote it when they want to justify regulations on homosexuality.
But anyways, if you want some antisemitism this chap points out where you might find some.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2009/07/new-testament-anti-semitism/
-
There isn't a single Christian view of the Law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_Old_Covenant
-
Matt isn't being antisemitic, not least because he's Jewish by ancestry. If it's in the OT then it is valid to point out that many (most?) Christians ignore the finer points of Judaic law because it 'doesn't apply' yet quote it when they want to justify regulations on homosexuality.
Few, if any, Christians quote the OT to the exclusion of the NT and other factors - many having nothing to do with religious teachings. To quote the OT, as one of several sources, simply highlights the fact that the idea that homosexuality has been regarded as wrong throughout history isn't a problem in my view.
-
There isn't a single Christian view of the Law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_the_Old_Covenant
First time I've actually seen a 'mobile' version of wikipedia on a PC screen. Far easier to read that the traditional format!!
I would agree that there is no single Christian view on the Law, but as with many aspects of life, I think one has to take the view of the mainstream, and both academically and theologically, the non-applicability of the laws that are most commonly used to exemplify this link - those of eating shellfish or pork, or of combining two fibres in the same piece of cloth are very different to thse laws that govern how we relate to other human beings. Experience tells us that the former set are little more than commonsense rules that were probably already in existence anyway. The latter refer to aspects of life which are far more complex and which, in reality, are no different today than they were then. As such, they are timeless, culturally non-specific laws.
-
No. Thanks for asking.
I'm not sure, O. Matt has started a thread that seems to be antagonistic to many Jewish religous laws. He has tried to hide that fact by appearing to ask people who may well not be Jewish whether they do any of the things that he refers to, but it is clearly a criticism of Jewish religious law.
Something isn't automatically 'anti-semitic' just because it criticises Israel or Judaism. It's antisemitic if it criticises BECAUSE they are Israel or Judaism.
This is implicitly criticising Christians who pick and choose which elements of the Old Testament they will hold to whilst explicitly highlighting some of the absurd things that are prohibited.
It's mocking anachronistic superstitious nonsense, the fact that it's 'Judaist flavoured' is by-the-by, if it were Islamic tenets or Hindu tenets or cultural ideas like FGM it would still be a valid criticism.
There is a real trend of antisemitism in Europe at the moment - this is not a facet of that, this is a legitimate criticism of nonsense.
O.
-
There is a real trend of antisemitism in Europe at the moment - this is not a facet of that, this is a legitimate criticism of nonsense.
Except I would disagree with your decription of it as nonsense. If you look at a lot of the laws that we now regard as nonsensical, they had good reasons for them. Cooking pork is difficult at the best of times, let alone in the desert. Similarly with shellfish. The practice of mixing fibres or using old wineskins for a new brew are both commonsense when natural materials are concerned.
-
Except I would disagree with your decription of it as nonsense. If you look at a lot of the laws that we now regard as nonsensical, they had good reasons for them. Cooking pork is difficult at the best of times, let alone in the desert. Similarly with shellfish. The practice of mixing fibres or using old wineskins for a new brew are both commonsense when natural materials are concerned.
And that's not nonsense, that's learning from previous errors or foreseeable problems.
'Don't do this because the sky-man will be angry' is nonsense. It might have been the best explanation they had available, but with hindsight it's nonsense.
To criticise it as nonsense is not to single out Jews (cultural, ethnic or religious), especially given that the implication was about Christians who selectively cite some of these objections (the ones without any perceivable benefit, typically) whilst ignoring the others. That's, perhaps, anti-theist, but it's not anti-semitic.
O.
-
You do realize the New Testament also condemns homosexuality Rhi? Read the first chapter of Romans for a starter. (verse27)
-
'Don't do this because the sky-man will be angry' is nonsense. It might have been the best explanation they had available, but with hindsight it's nonsense.
Societies of all sorts, not only religious ones, have made rules out of commonsense concepts. This is often to do with trying to reinforce the importance of the common sense. A good example is the Hindu ban on killing/sacredness of cows. Anthropologists suggest that before the arrival of Hinduism, there was a concern that the people in the sub-continent were killing cows without thought, resulting in shortages of milk, calves and dung (a vital item in regard to cooking, for instance). There is evidence that there were laws in existence amongst the tribal groupings which were then swept up into the religious ban under Hinduism.
-
OK So was Jesus a Christian or a Jew ?!?!?!?
A Jew
-
Depends, how many points for ....eating a bacon and monkfish sandwich?
Is there a touch of antisemitism about this thread?
No. Thanks for asking.
O.
Is taking the piss out of the prohibition against eating bacon having a pop at Christians or having a pop at Jews?
-
You do realize the New Testament also condemns homosexuality Rhi? Read the first chapter of Romans for a starter. (verse27)
I know, but I don't understand why Christians also quote the OT law, which doesn't 'apply' to them. I've heard the Baptist minister in my own village do it.
-
You do realize the New Testament also condemns homosexuality Rhi? Read the first chapter of Romans for a starter. (verse27)
I know, but I don't understand why Christians also quote the OT law, which doesn't 'apply' to them. I've heard the Baptist minister in my own village do it.
Because homophobic Christians often have the habit of pretending to be guided by scripture, whereas in fact they are bringing their existing prejudices to scripture and finding bits which they think seem to endorse them. The massive inconsistency of them pretending to be guided by OT laws which clearly don't apply to Christians (e.g. pork, prawns, etc) reveals this.
-
I think you can have a bit of an applause for that post, Cybs.
-
I know, but I don't understand why Christians also quote the OT law, which doesn't 'apply' to them. I've heard the Baptist minister in my own village do it.
Something can 'not apply' to me but yet have a impact on my decision on a matter? For instance, as a Westerner, I am not required to walk a yard or two ahead of my wife or fiancee. However, when I was courting my now-wife whilst living and working in India, we chose to follow Indian traditional behaviour so as not to insult the local people we lived amongst. As for the issue of homosexuality, we can reference the fact that homosexuality has been regarded with revulsion through history and across cultures for good reasons.
-
Some here rant on about Christianity supplanting Jewish religion & thought & Jesus did nothing of the kind - even in the ballsed up version of the Bible we have now.
He lived & died a JEW !!!!! FACT.
Did Jesus ever say OOH Let's start a 'new' religion in MY name??? EH???
AGAIN. Was Jesus a Christian or a Jew???
I'LL answer if it's too difficult or too inconvenient....
JEW !!!!
Nick
-
Some here rant on about Christianity supplanting Jewish religion & thought & Jesus did nothing of the kind - even in the ballsed up version of the Bible we have now.
He lived & died a JEW !!!!! FACT.
Did Jesus ever say OOH Let's start a 'new' religion in MY name??? EH???
AGAIN. Was Jesus a Christian or a Jew???
I'LL answer if it's too difficult or too inconvenient....
JEW !!!!
Nick
I've already answered, old boy. Put that handbag down. If you find anyone who denies that Jesus was a Jew, then you can go right back to feigning indignation. Meanwhile, take one of your pills, Bobo, and calm down x
-
As for the issue of homosexuality, we can reference the fact that homosexuality has been regarded with revulsion through history and across cultures for good reasons.
What 'good reasons'?
-
Some here rant on about Christianity supplanting Jewish religion & thought & Jesus did nothing of the kind - even in the ballsed up version of the Bible we have now.
He lived & died a JEW !!!!! FACT.
Did Jesus ever say OOH Let's start a 'new' religion in MY name??? EH???
AGAIN. Was Jesus a Christian or a Jew???
I'LL answer if it's too difficult or too inconvenient....
JEW !!!!
Nick
I've already answered, old boy. Put that handbag down. If you find anyone who denies that Jesus was a Jew, then you can go right back to feigning indignation. Meanwhile, take one of your pills, Bobo, and calm down x
My reply wasn't aimed at YOU. This forum's not all about YOU, you know ?!?!?!?
I don't feign anything as I don't really give a s...
-
Some here rant on about Christianity supplanting Jewish religion & thought & Jesus did nothing of the kind - even in the ballsed up version of the Bible we have now.
He lived & died a JEW !!!!! FACT.
Did Jesus ever say OOH Let's start a 'new' religion in MY name??? EH???
AGAIN. Was Jesus a Christian or a Jew???
I'LL answer if it's too difficult or too inconvenient....
JEW !!!!
Nick
I've already answered, old boy. Put that handbag down. If you find anyone who denies that Jesus was a Jew, then you can go right back to feigning indignation. Meanwhile, take one of your pills, Bobo, and calm down x
My reply wasn't aimed at YOU. This forum's not all about YOU, you know ?!?!?!?
I don't feign anything as I don't really give a s...
That's an awful lot of punctuation marks for someone who doesn't give a shit, Bobo
-
Mixing up my sentences, are we OLD boy ???
-
Mixing up my sentences, are we OLD boy ???
You might be, I'm not
-
As for the issue of homosexuality, we can reference the fact that homosexuality has been regarded with revulsion through history and across cultures for good reasons.
What "reasons" were these and why were they "good" according to you?
ETA: I see Gordon has asked the same question. I'm sure he'll be every bit as interested in a reply as I am.
-
As for the issue of homosexuality, we can reference the fact that homosexuality has been regarded with revulsion through history and across cultures for good reasons.
What "reasons" were these and why were they "good" according to you?
Because it is practised by Catholic priests?
-
As for the issue of homosexuality, we can reference the fact that homosexuality has been regarded with revulsion through history and across cultures for good reasons.
What "reasons" were these and why were they "good" according to you?
Because it is practised by Catholic priests?
eh? Is there more homosexuality among Catholic priests than among other groups?
-
You do realize the New Testament also condemns homosexuality Rhi? Read the first chapter of Romans for a starter. (verse27)
These are the words of Paul, not Jesus.
-
As for the issue of homosexuality, we can reference the fact that homosexuality has been regarded with revulsion through history and across cultures for good reasons.
What "reasons" were these and why were they "good" according to you?
ETA: I see Gordon has asked the same question. I'm sure he'll be every bit as interested in a reply as I am.
I am too.
-
That makes three of us. Let's see if Hoppity returns to this thread with his (in his opinion) "good reasons."
-
You do realize the New Testament also condemns homosexuality Rhi? Read the first chapter of Romans for a starter. (verse27)
So what? The Bible is WRONG about many things homosexuality being one of them! ::)
-
You do realize the New Testament also condemns homosexuality Rhi? Read the first chapter of Romans for a starter. (verse27)
So what? The Bible is WRONG about many things homosexuality being one of them! ::)
With your vast and all-encompassing knowledge of the New Testament, what did Jesus say about homosexuality?
(Doesn't expect an answer -- mainly because she won't have one!)
-
You do realize the New Testament also condemns homosexuality Rhi? Read the first chapter of Romans for a starter. (verse27)
So what? The Bible is WRONG about many things homosexuality being one of them! ::)
With your vast and all-encompassing knowledge of the New Testament, what did Jesus say about homosexuality?
(Doesn't expect an answer -- mainly because she won't have one!)
It does not matter one iota what Jesus does or does not say about homosexuality.
We are talking about what the Bible says, because that is what you always quote as your authority for Christian values on everything.
-
You do realize the New Testament also condemns homosexuality Rhi? Read the first chapter of Romans for a starter. (verse27)
So what? The Bible is WRONG about many things homosexuality being one of them! ::)
With your vast and all-encompassing knowledge of the New Testament, what did Jesus say about homosexuality?
(Doesn't expect an answer -- mainly because she won't have one!)
It does not matter one iota what Jesus does or does not say about homosexuality.
We are talking about what the Bible says, because that is what you always quote as your authority for Christian values on everything.
I quote Jesus as my authority, and always have. Get it right.
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
No, He didn't say anything about it. And your added comment are the words of a numbskull.
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
No, He didn't say anything about it. And your added comment are the words of a numbskull.
How do you know he was not gay?
Was he married?
Did he have a girlfriend?
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
No, He didn't say anything about it. And your added comment are the words of a numbskull.
How do you know he was not gay?
Was he married?
Did he have a girlfriend?
We don't know the answer to those questions; so to make any assumptions is both invalid and provocative.
-
Floo didn't assume it; she stated it as a possibility, which it is.
Only provocative, of course, to somebody who has a problem with homosexuality. Otherwise it's nothing.
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
No, He didn't say anything about it. And your added comment are the words of a numbskull.
How do you know he was not gay?
Was he married?
Did he have a girlfriend?
We don't know the answer to those questions; so to make any assumptions is both invalid and provocative.
Quite right so equally we do not know if he was gay or not!
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
No, He didn't say anything about it. And your added comment are the words of a numbskull.
How do you know he was not gay?
Was he married?
Did he have a girlfriend?
We don't know the answer to those questions; so to make any assumptions is both invalid and provocative.
Quite right so equally we do not know if he was gay or not!
If you think so, give some sort of evidence to substantiate it. Anyone can throw casual comments about, without any substance. And even if it were true: so what? Are you anti-gay or something?
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
No, He didn't say anything about it. And your added comment are the words of a numbskull.
How do you know he was not gay?
Was he married?
Did he have a girlfriend?
We don't know the answer to those questions; so to make any assumptions is both invalid and provocative.
Quite right so equally we do not know if he was gay or not!
If you think so, give some sort of evidence to substantiate it. Anyone can throw casual comments about, without any substance. And even if it were true: so what? Are you anti-gay or something?
That would be like casual comments that someone was a plagiarist without substance.
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
No, He didn't say anything about it. And your added comment are the words of a numbskull.
How do you know he was not gay?
Was he married?
Did he have a girlfriend?
We don't know the answer to those questions; so to make any assumptions is both invalid and provocative.
Quite right so equally we do not know if he was gay or not!
If you think so, give some sort of evidence to substantiate it. Anyone can throw casual comments about, without any substance. And even if it were true: so what? Are you anti-gay or something?
Not at all.
I am simply pointing out that it is unknown whether he was gay or not.
Either way it makes no difference to me, but I suspect it would to you, and a lot of Christians.
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
No, He didn't say anything about it. And your added comment are the words of a numbskull.
How do you know he was not gay?
Was he married?
Did he have a girlfriend?
We don't know the answer to those questions; so to make any assumptions is both invalid and provocative.
Quite right so equally we do not know if he was gay or not!
If you think so, give some sort of evidence to substantiate it. Anyone can throw casual comments about, without any substance. And even if it were true: so what? Are you anti-gay or something?
Not at all.
I am simply pointing out that it is unknown whether he was gay or not.
Either way it makes no difference to me, but I suspect it would to you, and a lot of Christians.
It would not make an iota of difference to me, and you are not justified in assuming any such thing.
-
So why did you react so badly when it was suggested he might be?
You have accepted that he might have been I assume?
-
So why did you react so badly when it was suggested he might be?
You have accepted that he might have been I assume?
I did not react "badly," I simply questioned your unsubstantiated comment, so redolent of your usual approach to religion.
I will accept anything which is properly substantiated.
To repeat myself, on two counts: if there is proper evidence, I accept that; no problem. And, again, it does not matter. Why do you think it should?
-
So why did you react so badly when it was suggested he might be?
You have accepted that he might have been I assume?
I did not react "badly," I simply questioned your unsubstantiated comment, so redolent of your usual approach to religion.
I will accept anything which is properly substantiated.
I am stating that it is unknown!
That is a fact.
-
So why did you react so badly when it was suggested he might be?
You have accepted that he might have been I assume?
I did not react "badly," I simply questioned your unsubstantiated comment, so redolent of your usual approach to religion.
I will accept anything which is properly substantiated.
I am stating that it is unknown!
That is a fact.
It is unknown whether you are gay, or not. That is a fact, and it is of no concern to any one else. As is the case with Jesus.
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
No, He didn't say anything about it. And your added comment are the words of a numbskull.
How do you know he was not gay?
Was he married?
Did he have a girlfriend?
He is supposed to have had a specific disciple whom he loved!
-
Not surprisingly Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexuality, possibly because he was gay himself, and no bad thing if he had been!
No, He didn't say anything about it. And your added comment are the words of a numbskull.
How do you know he was not gay?
Was he married?
Did he have a girlfriend?
He is supposed to have had a specific disciple whom he loved!
So? Are there any women you especially love, and if so, does that make you a lesbian? And if it did, so what?
-
So why did you react so badly when it was suggested he might be?
To be fair, I don't think he reacted "badly", I think he just pointed out we have no idea whether he was or not. what's "bad" about that? Especially as you have explicitly agreed with him!
-
Have you ever had a lady friend that you were close to floo? Were you able to love her with out going all horny for her? You have missed out if you haven't had someone in your life like that. I'm not going to suggest you are a lesbian but you having a husband doesn't mean a thing really. Why make suggestions about Christ when there is no evidence to back you up. Having a best friend, being able to say you love that friend is a good thing, why do you have to make that into a sexual thingy?
A couple of fellas in my jr high school were tormented daily by bullies running around suggesting they were gay. School was hell for them, they lived in fear, all because people felt they had the right to suggest something about them. I don't know what became of these guys but I hope they have happy lives free from people making comments about them based on nothing.
I love my buddies floo, in my wild years I lived with a couple of my girl friends (not at the same time), but I never married. But saying I love a buddy is all you need to get your mind going on the sex thingy. Whatever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feLCpfGniz8
-
Some here rant on about Christianity supplanting Jewish religion & thought & Jesus did nothing of the kind - even in the ballsed up version of the Bible we have now.
He lived & died a JEW !!!!! FACT.
He may have lived and died a Jew, by race, but it doesn't necessarily mean he lived and died a Jew by belief. As the Son of God, I suspect that believed that he transcended 'religious belief'.
Did Jesus ever say OOH Let's start a 'new' religion in MY name??? EH???
AGAIN. Was Jesus a Christian or a Jew???
I'LL answer if it's too difficult or too inconvenient....
JEW !!!!
Not only did Jesus not say "OOH Let's start a 'new' religion in MY name", Nick; nor did his followers. The church had already been around for several years when the term was coined, as a form of abuse, by people in Antioch.
-
He is supposed to have had a specific disciple whom he loved!
And which Greek word is used to convey that fact, Floo?
-
Hope
Yes, I agree but it still begs the question why ALL Christians call themselves that??
Are there ANY Christians who call themselves Jews. How can they if they 'follow' the 'NEW' Testament. There are those here who cannot give themselves a wide enough gap between themselves & the Jews. It almost verges on anti-Semitism.
Also why don't Jews accept this? YEAH YEAH I KNOW Ask the Jews.??? Are there any Jews wasting, SORRY, SPENDING time on these boards ????
Nick
-
Not only did Jesus not say "OOH Let's start a 'new' religion in MY name", Nick; nor did his followers. The church had already been around for several years when the term was coined, as a form of abuse, by people in Antioch.
So it's really a sub-branch of Judaism.
-
Not only did Jesus not say "OOH Let's start a 'new' religion in MY name", Nick; nor did his followers. The church had already been around for several years when the term was coined, as a form of abuse, by people in Antioch.
So it's really a sub-branch of Judaism.
A remark that shows your total lack of any kind of Biblical understanding, especially the New Testament. Christianity and Judaism are totally divorced from one another. Have you ever read any of it?
-
Hope
Yes, I agree but it still begs the question why ALL Christians call themselves that??
Not all do.
Are there ANY Christians who call themselves Jews. How can they if they 'follow' the 'NEW' Testament.
There are Messianic Jews, who follow New Testament teaching on the grounds that they believe that it is the fulfillment of the Torah.
There are those here who cannot give themselves a wide enough gap between themselves & the Jews. It almost verges on anti-Semitism.
I think the reason why 'Christian' is so common a term is that the early church decided to take the term on board, perhaps as a way of blunting the derisive original nature of it. This kind of thing happens very often within society. The term 'Mesianic Jew' is pretty new and perhaps reflects the negative connotations understandably felt by the Jews towards Christianity. These ethnic Jews want to express their belief that Jesus was the Messiah that the Jews were waiting for 2000 years ago.
Also why don't Jews accept this? YEAH YEAH I KNOW Ask the Jews.??? Are there any Jews wasting, SORRY, SPENDING time on these boards ????
Nick
Well, it was the Jews who first accepted it, Nick. After all, it would seem that it was Peter who first endorsed the term in a positive way. The reason many didn't could well have had something to do with the political situation that prevailed in Palestine at the time, when for the previous 2-300 years, 'the Messiah' had been thought of as a military/political entity rather than a spiritual one, as the term had originally implied.
-
So it's really a sub-branch of Judaism.
Probably as much as one can say that Buddhism is a sub-branch of Hinduism!!
-
He is supposed to have had a specific disciple whom he loved!
And which Greek word is used to convey that fact, Floo?
Well, I'll give you a few clues:
The word used in John 13:23 is ἠγάπα (to greet with affection). Now, I assume you greet your daughters and their families 'with affection' whenever they visit. Does that mean that you love them sexually?
In John 11:5, the same verb is used to describe Jesus' attitude towards Mary and Martha
-
Hope
Thanks again for your well thought out answer.
We must remember, according to Jewish tradition THE Messiah must fullfil ALL the criteria & Jesus didn't. If so there'd be NO Jews anymore from His time, eh?
N
-
Hope
Thanks again for your well thought out answer.
We must remember, according to Jewish tradition THE Messiah must fullfil ALL the criteria & Jesus didn't. If so there'd be NO Jews anymore from His time, eh?
N
Which criteria didn't he fulfil? At the same time, which set of criteria are you referring to? The original set or the ones that were established about 2/300 years before Jesus' birth when the term was redefined to a more militaristic/political meaning (that which is outlined in the wikipedia article on Messiah). The concept of an anointed one, especially in the spiritual area, long predates the idea of a political character.
-
Do YOU feel Jesus fulfilled BOTH ???
-
Do YOU feel Jesus fulfilled BOTH ???
Both? I believe that he fulfilled the original concept's criteria. Why would he need to fulfil the more modern ideas?
-
'Don't do this because the sky-man will be angry' is nonsense. It might have been the best explanation they had available, but with hindsight it's nonsense.
Societies of all sorts, not only religious ones, have made rules out of commonsense concepts. This is often to do with trying to reinforce the importance of the common sense. A good example is the Hindu ban on killing/sacredness of cows. Anthropologists suggest that before the arrival of Hinduism, there was a concern that the people in the sub-continent were killing cows without thought, resulting in shortages of milk, calves and dung (a vital item in regard to cooking, for instance). There is evidence that there were laws in existence amongst the tribal groupings which were then swept up into the religious ban under Hinduism.
That doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense. It might have been nonsense because that's what a limited understanding of the time needed, but that doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense, particularly in the 21st century when we do have refrigeration and the germ theory of disease.
O.
-
Depends, how many points for ....eating a bacon and monkfish sandwich?
Is there a touch of antisemitism about this thread?
No. Thanks for asking.
O.
Is taking the piss out of the prohibition against eating bacon having a pop at Christians or having a pop at Jews?
No, it's having a pop at people who live their lives according to anachronistic nonsense. That (some?) Christians and (some?) Jews can include themselves in that group isn't a function of the criticism being 'aimed' at either Christians or Jews, but rather at superstitious people of any persuasion.
O.
-
...but that doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense, particularly in the 21st century when we do have refrigeration and the germ theory of disease.
Except of course in those parts of the world where there isn't electricity - hence no refridgeration - and limited healthcare facilities. As is the case with rather too many people on this forum, the assumption is that what we enjoy here in the West - like white goods and good healthcare - is enjoyed by all 7+ billion inhabitants of this world.
-
...but that doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense, particularly in the 21st century when we do have refrigeration and the germ theory of disease.
Except of course in those parts of the world where there isn't electricity - hence no refridgeration - and limited healthcare facilities. As is the case with rather too many people on this forum, the assumption is that what we enjoy here in the West - like white goods and good healthcare - is enjoyed by all 7+ billion inhabitants of this world.
No, it's still nonsense even there. There is no situation in which 'don't eat shellfish because the celestial zombie-wizard will be displeased' is not nonsense.
Don't eat shellfish might very well be good guidance, but tacking on baseless superstition makes it nonsense.
It's not the advice that's nonsense, it's the pretense of a justification.
O.
-
There is no situation in which 'don't eat shellfish because the celestial zombie-wizard will be displeased' is not nonsense.
If you don't object, I'm pinching that for a future quote - attributed, of course :)
-
Don't eat shellfish might very well be good guidance, but tacking on baseless superstition makes it nonsense.
It's not the advice that's nonsense, it's the pretense of a justification.
And if you look at the Old testament, for instance, a lot of the rules are just that - rules. The justifications are often tacked on by humans. They are later interpretations of those rules or explanations of their purpose.
-
Don't eat shellfish might very well be good guidance, but tacking on baseless superstition makes it nonsense.
It's not the advice that's nonsense, it's the pretense of a justification.
And if you look at the Old testament, for instance, a lot of the rules are just that - rules. The justifications are often tacked on by humans. They are later interpretations of those rules or explanations of their purpose.
If it ended there, that'd be fine: this is the instruction, take it or leave it. Authoritarianism isn't justified, but it's not intrinsically nonsense.
However, people who have come along to 'enforce' those rules have made the argument - and still make the argument - you must do this because god says. They've given up on not eating shellfish (in the main) or pork (less so), but still stick to 'no being gay'. The justification is still lacking, and if in the absence of a justification people resort to 'because my god says so' then it's a return to nonsense.
O.
-
As for the issue of homosexuality, we can reference the fact that homosexuality has been regarded with revulsion through history and across cultures for good reasons.
What "reasons" were these and why were they "good" according to you?
ETA: I see Gordon has asked the same question. I'm sure he'll be every bit as interested in a reply as I am.
I hope no one's been holding their breath.
-
There is no situation in which 'don't eat shellfish because the celestial zombie-wizard will be displeased' is not nonsense.
If you don't object, I'm pinching that for a future quote - attributed, of course :)
Why?......Doesn't 'Big Bottom wee-wee poo poo face' do it for you any more as a term of abuse?
-
As for the issue of homosexuality, we can reference the fact that homosexuality has been regarded with revulsion through history and across cultures for good reasons.
What "reasons" were these and why were they "good" according to you?
ETA: I see Gordon has asked the same question. I'm sure he'll be every bit as interested in a reply as I am.
I hope no one's been holding their breath.
Indeed ::)
-
I keep looking in to see if we have had an answer. Sadly not.
-
I keep looking in to see if we have had an answer. Sadly not.
Nor, I regret to say are we likely to as an admission that the only reason is rampant homophobia is not likely to be all that welcome or popular.
-
Well, that's the triumph of experience over Hope, isn't it?
-
OUCH! Harsh but probably true!
-
Well, that's the triumph of experience over Hope, isn't it?
Points
-
So it's really a sub-branch of Judaism.
Probably as much as one can say that Buddhism is a sub-branch of Hinduism!!
So you're sort of half agreeing with Leonard and half agreeing with BA? I take it you don't entirely support BA's latter-day Marcionism, with his virulent insistence on divorcing the OT from the NT?
-
So the God who made the prohibitions listed in the Old Testament is not the God of the Christians?
I wondered when someone would make this schoolboy error, Matt.
As has been discussed on at least two other threads recently, Jesus pointed out that he had come to fulfill the law. In other words, he had come - as God in human form - to make the law unnecessary by instigating a completely different approach to life (and before you make any comments about how unsuccessful that was, I will happily acknowledge that the church has often failed to live up to the standards Jesus set for us).
The Jewish people, for whom the original law was developed, remain under its jurisdiction for as long as they choose to ignore/dispute the Messiahship of Jesus. Therefore, it ios they who you ought to be addressing the question in the OP. In a sense, so does everyone else, since law only exists to control or manage human failing.
Isaiah and Micah had already declared most of the Levitical law obsolete. Hillel went even further in this regard than Jesus. Modern Jews are a mixed bunch, just as Christians are. Do you think Rabbi Julia Neuberger is very concerned about wearing clothes made of two types of fabric?
-
So it's really a sub-branch of Judaism.
Probably as much as one can say that Buddhism is a sub-branch of Hinduism!!
So you're sort of half agreeing with Leonard and half agreeing with BA? I take it you don't entirely support BA's latter-day Marcionism, with his virulent insistence on divorcing the OT from the NT?
Well, no Buddhist would want to be told that Buddhism is 'really a sub-branch of' Hinduism. I happen to believe that this 'sub-branch' idea is too simplistic. As for BA's 'virulent insistence on divorcing the OT from the NT', it would seem to me that he is determined that the God of the OT is not the same as the God of the NT - something I would disagree with.
-
Hillel went even further in this regard than Jesus.
I would disagree, in that Hillel stayed within the parameters of Torahnic teachings. As such, he expounded the Torah. Jesus, on the other hand, took those same teachings and punched holes in them by saying that they didn't go far enough. Hence the Sermon on the Mount which radically remoulds the ideas taught in the Torah.
-
Since you've been back to this thread, Hope, perhaps you can now answer the question, posed by myself, Gordon and Rhiannon independently, of what you think the "good reasons" were or are that homosexuality has been regarded "with revulsion" "through history and across cultures" as per your #66.
Doubtless omitting to answer this point was merely an oversight on your part, and I'm glad to remind you of the point.
-
Since you've been back to this thread, Hope, perhaps you can now answer the question, posed by myself, Gordon and Rhiannon independently, of what you think the "good reasons" were or are that homosexuality has been regarded "with revulsion" "through history and across cultures" as per your #66.
Doubtless omitting to answer this point was merely an oversight on your part, and I'm glad to remind you of the point.
All good questions I'm sure.
I wonder whether the cultures I think you are alluding to...Ancient Israel?.. regarded lots of things with revulsion and that it is a less than useful exercise to look at a culture as ''homophobic'' rather than ''revolted''. To focus on this is to be a bit revisionist and not at all historical. Still I understand why you bring in this historical revision, that these cultures were specifically homophobic and their society and economy were somehow powered by homophobia. That is IMHO a specifically antitheist narrative and is one of the heaviest bludgeons in the antitheists armoury.
My own understanding is that the heart of ancient Israeli life was the conventional family, that childbearing and nuclear family building were central and that any sexual activity outside of that( and the ancient Israelis took it that anyone was capable of any of those acts ) was held with equal revulsion.
At this moment I am thinking of historians who might be better placed to clear the ''revulsion of ancient societies''...someone like say, Diarmid Mc collough who describes himself both as a friend of Christianity and Gay.
-
What a strange attitude they had to a natural process we pretty much all share.
:o
That's what the daft belief in "God" can bring you to! :D
-
... and what a planet-load of grief and misery it has brought to the race >:(
-
Considering the Bible is supposed to have a downer on adultery it is incredible how many of the Biblical 'heroes' had extra marital sex, like Abraham, for instance! Solomon must have gone in for serial bonking as he had so many concubines!
-
Considering the Bible is supposed to have a downer on adultery it is incredible how many of the Biblical 'heroes' had extra marital sex, like Abraham, for instance! Solomon must have gone in for serial bonking as he had so many concubines!
Phwoooaar.
-
Considering the Bible is supposed to have a downer on adultery it is incredible how many of the Biblical 'heroes' had extra marital sex, like Abraham, for instance! Solomon must have gone in for serial bonking as he had so many concubines!
You can't get too much of a good thing! ;D
-
"According to one Gnostic view women were wholly creations of the Devil, as were men from the waist down*"
Rose, you need to remember that Gnosticism had been in existence for years before the birth of Christianity (they exist in Hindusim and Buddhism), so Gnostic ideas like this aren't 'Christian' ideas. As does happen in many areas of life, Gnostic ideas began to infiltrate the church, and it is generally thought that John's Gospel was written to counter a number of ideas - such as Gnostic ones - that contradicted Christian thought.
As for the passage about 'making themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake', the Greek has a meaning closer to " ... and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (NIV). In other words, they choose to remain celibate, arguing that if they are to serve the kingdom of heaven, (or even an employer) they can do so more efficiently by choosing to abstain from sexual activity.
-
As for the passage about 'making themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake', the Greek has a meaning closer to " ... and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (NIV). In other words, they choose to remain celibate, arguing that if they are to serve the kingdom of heaven, (or even an employer) they can do so more efficiently by choosing to abstain from sexual activity.
... which coincidentally but happily and neatly brings us straight back to the unanswered (since unanswerable) point that any omnipotent and omniscient deity would have no difficulty in getting its intended message across perfectly transparently without crossing its fingers and taking pot luck with the vagaries of translation between different human languages by fallible, information-limited and/or agenda-pushing human beings.
Thoroughly shoddy work all round, I'd say.
-
Considering the Bible is supposed to have a downer on adultery it is incredible how many of the Biblical 'heroes' had extra marital sex, like Abraham, for instance! Solomon must have gone in for serial bonking as he had so many concubines!
Are you suggesting that the Bible should only have recorded the 'good' things/behaviours. It's worth pointing out that where people had done things that were wrong, the Bible points out the outcomes - such as the breakdown in relationships between Sara and Ishmael, David's temporary loss of sanity and the throne, Solomon's adultery leading to the collapse of the united nation of Israel, etc.
-
In other words, they choose to remain celibate, arguing that if they are to serve the kingdom of heaven, (or even an employer) they can do so more efficiently by choosing to abstain from sexual activity.
Which itself is demonstrative of how stupid they were. Sexual repression has a negative effect.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html
-
... which coincidentally but happily and neatly brings us straight back to the unanswered (since unanswerable) point that any omnipotent and omniscient deity would have no difficulty in getting its intended message across perfectly transparently without crossing its fingers and taking pot luck with the vagaries of translation between different human languages by fallible, information-limited and/or agenda-pushing human beings.
Thoroughly shoddy work all round, I'd say.
I realise that you would rather that humanity was robotic without any opportunity to do its own thing, but we aren't. the 'unanswered question' you refer to has been answered numerous times by a variety of posters here, including some who have no religious belief.
-
As for the passage about 'making themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake', the Greek has a meaning closer to " ... and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (NIV). In other words, they choose to remain celibate, arguing that if they are to serve the kingdom of heaven, (or even an employer) they can do so more efficiently by choosing to abstain from sexual activity.
... which coincidentally but happily and neatly brings us straight back to the unanswered (since unanswerable) point that any omnipotent and omniscient deity would have no difficulty in getting its intended message across perfectly transparently without crossing its fingers and taking pot luck with the vagaries of translation between different human languages by fallible, information-limited and/or agenda-pushing human beings.
Thoroughly shoddy work all round, I'd say.
I don't see how it nicely brings things round to what you say it does....except if you expected a comment on Origen castrating himself...but then, doesn't that sound a teeny bit apocryphal to you?
Besides isn't it a bit silly to support people ending their own lives at the hands of others and yet expressing revulsion at someone taking a free choice to have their plums removed?
-
Which itself is demonstrative of how stupid they were. Sexual repression has a negative effect.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html
But we're not talking about sexual repression, Len. We're talking about voluntary abstention which is very different to repression (which is imposed upon people).
-
I realise that you would rather that humanity was robotic without any opportunity to do its own thing, but we aren't.
Nothing to do with the beloved robots so often trundled out - metaphorically speaking - by the deity's defenders when faced with a question they can't answer.
It really is perfectly simple.
You presumably think that the deity in which you believe is powerful enough to magic a universe into being out of nothing and to perform parlour tricks such as enabling a virgin to give birth and corpses to come back to life; but when it comes to being able to get across its message to its human creation in an absolutely crystal-clear, transparent way which doesn't allow for ambiguity or error or any other kind of unclarity, its supposed powers suddenly desert it and we're left with a hodge-podge of differing translations, frequently mutually contradictory, in a multiplicity of human languages, made by fallible, information-limited humans who may have an agenda to advance.
Why is that, exactly, in your view? I know full well what my explanation is, but I'm asking you for yours.
the 'unanswered question' you refer to has been answered numerous times by a variety of posters here, including some who have no religious belief.
I haven't seen any such answer. Can you point to me to where this matter has been answered, please?
-
... which coincidentally but happily and neatly brings us straight back to the unanswered (since unanswerable) point that any omnipotent and omniscient deity would have no difficulty in getting its intended message across perfectly transparently without crossing its fingers and taking pot luck with the vagaries of translation between different human languages by fallible, information-limited and/or agenda-pushing human beings.
Thoroughly shoddy work all round, I'd say.
I realise that you would rather that humanity was robotic without any opportunity to do its own thing, but we aren't. the 'unanswered question' you refer to has been answered numerous times by a variety of posters here, including some who have no religious belief.
On the contrary! No 'god' has ever unequivocably demonstrated its existence. So either it is unwilling to, or it doesn't exist.
-
Which itself is demonstrative of how stupid they were. Sexual repression has a negative effect.
http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html
But we're not talking about sexual repression, Len. We're talking about voluntary abstention which is very different to repression (which is imposed upon people).
The result is the same whether it is voluntary or obliged.
-
I realise that you would rather that humanity was robotic without any opportunity to do its own thing, but we aren't.
Nothing to do with the beloved robots so often trundled out - metaphorically speaking - by the deity's defenders when faced with a question they can't answer.
It really is perfectly simple.
You presumably think that the deity in which you believe is powerful enough to magic a universe into being out of nothing and to perform parlour tricks such as enabling a virgin to give birth and corpses to come back to life; but when it comes to being able to get across its message to its human creation in an absolutely crystal-clear, transparent way which doesn't allow for ambiguity or error or any other kind of unclarity, its supposed powers suddenly desert it and we're left with a hodge-podge of differing translations, frequently mutually contradictory, in a multiplicity of human languages, made by fallible, information-limited humans who may have an agenda to advance.
Why is that, exactly, in your view? I know full well what my explanation is, but I'm asking you for yours.
the 'unanswered question' you refer to has been answered numerous times by a variety of posters here, including some who have no religious belief.
I haven't seen any such answer. Can you point to me to where this matter has been answered, please?
Shaker I refer you to a post I received when I asked for similar clarification (it'll save you time):
Quote from: Trentvoyager on August 10, 2015, 12:23:33 PM
Could you point me to one?
If I had the time, I could probably find several, Trent, but I'm not minded to waste my time on such a process, just to satisfy your uncertainty over your posting record.
-
Thank you trent ::)
-
On the contrary! No 'god' has ever unequivocably demonstrated its existence. So either it is unwilling to, or it doesn't exist.
And your evidence for these assertions is ...? As a Christian, I would argue that the fact that you exist is sufficient evidence. ;)
-
On the contrary! No 'god' has ever unequivocably demonstrated its existence. So either it is unwilling to, or it doesn't exist.
And your evidence for these assertions is ...? As a Christian, I would argue that the fact that you exist is sufficient evidence. ;)
I know I'm rather divine, but my existence was my parents doing, not "God's". :)
-
Thank you trent ::)
Shaker, you claimed that it was an 'unanswered point', so the burden of proof lies with you to show that it hasn't been answered.
-
Considering the Bible is supposed to have a downer on adultery it is incredible how many of the Biblical 'heroes' had extra marital sex, like Abraham, for instance! Solomon must have gone in for serial bonking as he had so many concubines!
Phwoooaar.
Now, now dear, you will be needing a larger size in pants! ;D ;D ;D
-
Considering the Bible is supposed to have a downer on adultery it is incredible how many of the Biblical 'heroes' had extra marital sex, like Abraham, for instance! Solomon must have gone in for serial bonking as he had so many concubines!
Phwoooaar.
Now, now dear, you will be needing a larger size in pants! ;D ;D ;D
.....I'm not sure whether to respond to that with my Sid James laugh...........or my Len James laugh.
-
On the contrary! No 'god' has ever unequivocably demonstrated its existence. So either it is unwilling to, or it doesn't exist.
And your evidence for these assertions is ...? As a Christian, I would argue that the fact that you exist is sufficient evidence. ;)
I know I'm rather divine, but my existence was my parents doing, not "God's". :)
Love it! Applause for LJ
-
Thank you trent ::)
Shaker, you claimed that it was an 'unanswered point', so the burden of proof lies with you to show that it hasn't been answered.
Good luck with that, Shakes! Finding non-existent answers, might even tax your ingenuity! ;D
-
I know I'm rather divine, but my existence was my parents doing, not "God's". :)
I didn't say that it wasn't your parents' doing, but that that doesn't mean that it isn't God's doing as well. Or are you saying that the Crompton incandescent light bulb that is sitting on my desk alongside my keyboard is Crompton's doing and has no connection to Thomas Edison and Lewis Latimer?
-
I know I'm rather divine, but my existence was my parents doing, not "God's". :)
I didn't say that it wasn't your parents' doing, but that that doesn't mean that it isn't God's doing as well. Or are you saying that the Crompton incandescent light bulb that is sitting on my desk alongside my keyboard is Crompton's doing and has no connection to Thomas Edison and Lewis Latimer?
The idea of my parents having it off is cringe making, having the deity playing voyeur is too much! ;D ;D ;D
-
Thank you trent ::)
Shaker, you claimed that it was an 'unanswered point', so the burden of proof lies with you to show that it hasn't been answered.
I said I have seen no such answers, hence "unanswered."
You allege that it has been answered here by somebody, sometime. (In fact, according to you, "numerous times by a variety of posters," presumably making a link or two even easier to find).
I ask for a pointer as to who and where.
You dodge the question entirely just as you did with trent and come up with a feeble and contemptible excuse and even feebler and even more contemptible attempt at shifting the burden of proof onto me.
Who is amazed? Not this chappy.
-
I didn't say that it wasn't your parents' doing, but that that doesn't mean that it isn't God's doing as well.
Well this is intellectual wankery on a variety of levels, isn't it?
You can demonstrate, with evidence, that parents create children.
Adding "God" into the process provides absolutely no information or explanation since it adds nothing of any explanatory power whatsoever. (I do mean real and actual explanatory power, not the pseudo version beloved of theists). There's no new, extra information or explanation after you've introduced the term than before. So it gets sliced up - or rather off - by Occam's Razor from the off.
The concept of God has no cogent and coherent definition, i.e. anything rigorous, anything beyond the permanently shifting sands of what this or that theist subjectively thinks his god is.
Last of all - I knew you wouldn't let us down with yet another deployment of the negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance which you have taken so dearly and closely to heart.
-
I didn't say that it wasn't your parents' doing, but that that doesn't mean that it isn't God's doing as well.
Well this is intellectual wankery on a variety of levels, isn't it?
You can demonstrate, with evidence, that parents create children.
Adding "God" into the process provides absolutely no information or explanation since it adds nothing of any explanatory power whatsoever.(I do mean real and actual explanatory power, not the pseudo version beloved of theists). There's no new, extra information or explanation after you've introduced the term than before. So it gets sliced up - or rather off - by Occam's Razor from the off.
The concept of God has no cogent and coherent definition, i.e. anything rigorous, anything beyond the permanently shifting sands of what this or that theist subjectively thinks his god is.
Last of all - I knew you wouldn't let us down with yet another deployment of the negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance which you have taken so dearly and closely to heart.
How do you get from ''sperm fertilises egg'' to ''god doesn't exist''?? Shaker.....now THAT sounds like intellectual wankery.
-
How do you get from ''sperm fertilises egg'' to ''god doesn't exist''?? Shaker.....now THAT sounds like intellectual wankery.
It would have been, if that's what I had written.
But I didn't.
Try reading what's actually there on the screen in front of you instead of what you think is there.
-
How do you get from ''sperm fertilises egg'' to ''god doesn't exist''?? Shaker.....now THAT sounds like intellectual wankery.
It would have been, if that's what I had written.
But I didn't.
Try reading what's actually there on the screen in front of you instead of what you think is there.
Tsk, tsk, Vlad doesn't need to read what you have writtten, he simply jizzes all over a ouija board and makes up posts from the bespunked letters.
-
The idea of my parents having it off is cringe making, having the deity playing voyeur is too much! ;D ;D ;D
Where do you get the idea that the deity played voyeur? To revisit my analogy of the light-bulb, Edison and Latimer wouldn't have seen the light-bulb being created, but without them it may well not have been created.
-
Well this is intellectual wankery on a variety of levels, isn't it?
You can demonstrate, with evidence, that parents create children.
One can also demonstrate that children can be created without any parents' sexual involvement.
Adding "God" into the process provides absolutely no information or explanation since it adds nothing of any explanatory power whatsoever.(I do mean real and actual explanatory power, not the pseudo version beloved of theists). There's no new, extra information or explanation after you've introduced the term than before. So it gets sliced up - or rather off - by Occam's Razor from the off.
Oddly enough, it does, Shaker. It explains where humanity itself originated from. I appreciate that you see an intentionless universe around you whereby evolution occurred with no purpose, so you simply see humanity and other forms of life developing accidentally. I do not hold to that philosophy.
The concept of God has no cogent and coherent definition, i.e. anything rigorous, anything beyond the permanently shifting sands of what this or that theist subjectively thinks his god is.
Again, you make a huge generalisation which effectively invalidates your argument. With a few exceptions, theists believe that God is the menns by which existence was initiated. OK, some will believe that that 'means' is by means of special creation; others by a form of evolution; others still by other means.
Last of all - I knew you wouldn't let us down with yet another deployment of the negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance which you have taken so dearly and closely to heart.
And I was pretty sure that you couldn't resist the deployment of the negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance argument - so thanks for not failing to do so. May I remind you that even the greatest scientific minds have no idea how humanity along with the rest of the life, the universe and everything originally came into being, so at best, your argument is no less from a "negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance" perspective.
-
I said I have seen no such answers, hence "unanswered."
Oh, I see. I'm sorry that I have failed to understand your 'omniscience' whereby, if you haven't seen something, it doesn't exist.
-
I know I'm rather divine, but my existence was my parents doing, not "God's". :)
I didn't say that it wasn't your parents' doing, but that that doesn't mean that it isn't God's doing as well. Or are you saying that the Crompton incandescent light bulb that is sitting on my desk alongside my keyboard is Crompton's doing and has no connection to Thomas Edison and Lewis Latimer?
The difference being, of course, that the all characters involved in the light bulb analogy are all well documented and proven to have existed, whereas there is zero evidence for the prime mover, "God", in your analogy.
Care to try again? :)
-
One can also demonstrate that children can be created without any parents' sexual involvement.
Then do so.
I mean, obviously you won't, because you don't substantiate any of your assertions. Trent pointed that out a day or two ago, only to be told that you "weren't minded" to do it.
Gordon, Rhiannon and I are still dying to know what you think were or are the "good reasons" why homosexuality was "viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" on a thread which we know you've visited because you've subsequently posted on it.
Clearly, you're not in the assertion-substantiating business; but you can't say that you weren't given every chance.
Oddly enough, it does, Shaker.
No it doesn't.
It explains where humanity itself originated from.
This is precisely the pseudo-explanation beloved of theists that I was referring to. For an explanation actually to be an explanation, it has some explaining to do (as it were), not mere asserting. That God explains anything is an assertion, not an explanation. A good explanation - I mean, one that actually explains, not asserts - is like a chain where one link is joined to another and that one joined to another and that one joined to another and that one joined to another ... and so on, such that there's a consistent linkage, an interconnected series of steps between the beginning of the chain (the thing to be explained) and its end (the explanation). In your case, the chain has no first link, is invisible, intangible, can't be heard, can't be tasted, can't be smelt, in fact in every possible way is indistinguishable from a nonexistent chain ... genius ::)
I appreciate that you see an intentionless universe around you whereby evolution occurred with no purpose, so you simply see humanity and other forms of life developing accidentally.
Almost wholly correct but not quite. Life develops according to evolution by natural selection, which is only partially accidental.
I do not hold to that philosophy.
Yes, we know, but your reasons for holding to the philosophy that you do hold to are vacuous. Mine is the minimal, conservative position; as Daniel Harbour would put it, my worldview is the Spartan meritocracy whereas yours is the Baroque monarchy.
Again, you make a huge generalisation which effectively invalidates your argument. With a few exceptions, theists believe that God is the menns by which existence was initiated.
This is merely a hand-waving pseudo-explanatory belief which no rational person need take seriously, as per my third response above.
OK, some will believe that that 'means' is by means of special creation
Which is evidence-free trash.
others by a form of evolution
Which is yet another example of tacking on a theistic pseudo-explanation which adds absolutely no information whatsoever to what is already reliably known and firmly based in reason and, especially in this area, evidence. A fifth wheel on the cart, in other words: it's there but it does nothing and is just dead weight. Adds nothing, explains nothing, says nothing, means nothing. At all.
May I remind you that even the greatest scientific minds have no idea how humanity along with the rest of the life, the universe and everything originally came into being, so at best, your argument is no less from a "negative proof fallacy/appeal to ignorance/argument from ignorance" perspective.
We know how humanity came into being; as for the rest - origin of life, origin of universe etc. - I'm making no positive statement about them so you can't claim that I'm deploying your dearly beloved negative proof fallacy. Where did I even mention the origins of life and the universe? Where did you see me do so? Do theists like you and Vlad go to a special theistic computer equipment shop down some dingy back alley somewhere and buy special theistic computer equipment which puts in extra words or sentences over and above what's written by the person at the other end, so that you reply to what appears on your screens and not what's actually written on mine? I have to assume so, because Vlad did it a little earlier and you've just done it now.
Making shit up, the hallmark of theism ever since theism.
And one more thing:
http://goo.gl/WgGyYU
-
With a few exceptions, theists believe that God is the menns by which existence was initiated.
When you look at this, do you begin to understand why it makes no odds to atheists (like me anyway) whether Jesus was resurrected or not when you're using it as evidence for a god?
-
With a few exceptions, theists believe that God is the menns by which existence was initiated.
When you look at this, do you begin to understand why it makes no odds to atheists (like me anyway) whether Jesus was resurrected or not when you're using it as evidence for a god?
No I don't, especially as I don't use the resurrection as evidence for a god. If anything, my thought process is the other way round, as my post explained.
-
One can also demonstrate that children can be created without any parents' sexual involvement.
Then do so.
The most obvious is IVF, Shaker, something that I'm sure you have a fairly good understanding of.
Gordon, Rhiannon and I are still dying to know what you think were or are the "good reasons" why homosexuality was "viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures" on a thread which we know you've visited because you've subsequently posted on it.
Not quite sure about you - but Gordon and Rhi have both been involved in threads where this issue has been covered extensively by pretty well every member of the board. So bringing them on board as make-weights to your opinion doesn't really cut it. However, I would suggest that you too have been involved in similar threads (if not exactly the same ones) bearing mind you've been a member of this board since 2011 (albeit not continually).
This kind of pseudo-ignorance does you and your argument no favours.
Oddly enough, it does, Shaker.
No it doesn't.
It explains where humanity itself originated from.
This is precisely the pseudo-explanation beloved of theists that I was referring to. For an explanation actually to be an explanation, it has some explaining to do (as it were), not mere asserting. That God explains anything is an assertion, not an explanation. A good explanation - I mean, one that actually explains, not asserts - is like a chain where one link is joined to another and that one joined to another and that one joined to another and that one joined to another ... and so on, such that there's a consistent linkage, an interconnected series of steps between the beginning of the chain (the thing to be explained) and its end (the explanation). In your case, the chain has no first link, is invisible, intangible, can't be heard, can't be tasted, can't be smelt, in fact in every possible way is indistinguishable from a nonexistent chain ... genius ::)
I accept that you may believe that there is no 'first link' as you call it, but there are many who do not agree with you.
Its worth pointing out that the 'explanations' that you and others here quite happily give for the existence of life and everything, and expect others to accept, fail on the very same point that you are trying to convince me about.
Yes, we know, but your reasons for holding to the philosophy that you do hold to are vacuous. Mine is the minimal, conservative position; as Daniel Harbour would put it, my worldview is the Spartan meritocracy whereas yours is the Baroque monarchy.
If that is the case, why is your 'Spartan meritocracy' so complex and dependent on so many links that are only surmised? Minimalist? Nah.
others by a form of evolution
Which is yet another example of tacking on a theistic pseudo-explanation which adds absolutely no information whatsoever to what is already reliably known and firmly based in reason and, especially in this area, evidence.[/quote]So 'reliably known and firmly based in reason and, especially in this area, evidence' that it makes no judgement on purpose, suggesting that at the best, it is somewhat mechanistic.
We know how humanity came into being; ...
We may know how they came into being (there still seem to be a number of areas where details are debated), but then if you're happy with partial knowledge like that, I suppose that's a sufficient response. There are others aspect of existence that your 'knowledge' signally fails to even address such as 'purpose'
... as for the rest - origin of life, origin of universe etc. - I'm making no positive statement about them so you can't claim that I'm deploying your dearly beloved negative proof fallacy. Where did I even mention the origins of life and the universe? Where did you see me do so? Do theists like you and Vlad go to a special theistic computer equipment shop down some dingy back alley somewhere and buy special theistic computer equipment which puts in extra words or sentences over and above what's written by the person at the other end, so that you reply to what appears on your screens and not what's actually written on mine?
Communication doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are elements like context, and a 'speaker's' previous utterances which one has to take into account when seeking how to understand what others 'say', in whatever form that might be.
http://goo.gl/WgGyYU
Something you seem to be good at, Shaker.
-
The most obvious is IVF, Shaker, something that I'm sure you have a fairly good understanding of.
So much so that I'm aware it's been in existence for less than forty years - are you suggesting IVF was the means by which Jesus was made?
Not quite sure about you - but Gordon and Rhi have both been involved in threads where this issue has been covered extensively by pretty well every member of the board. So bringing them on board as make-weights to your opinion doesn't really cut it. However, I would suggest that you too have been involved in similar threads (if not exactly the same ones) bearing mind you've been a member of this board since 2011 (albeit not continually).
This kind of pseudo-ignorance does you and your argument no favours.
I'm not "bringing them on board as make-weights to my opinion"; I'm reminding you that they have expressed an interest in seeing you state what you think are the "good reasons" that homosexuality "has been viewed with revulsion through history and across cultures," a statement which you made a few days ago on this thread (August 7th 2015 at 21:09:43, to be precise). Presumably neither Gordon nor Rhiannon feel that any prior involvement in such threads where the subject of homosexuality has been "covered extensively by pretty well every member of the board" obviates a request for clarification from you this time round. Here's Gordon at 21:57:16 on the same day:
What "good reasons"?
Here's me at 22:42:46:
What "reasons" were these and why were they "good" according to you?
ETA: I see Gordon has asked the same question. I'm sure he'll be every bit as interested in a reply as I am.
and in response to my post here's Rhiannon the following day (August 8th) at 10:11:35am:
I am too.
They appear not to think that having engaged in threads previously (even "covered extensively by pretty well every member of the board" ones) means that you're off the hook as regards backing up your assertion - they want to know and so do I. Are you going to provide backing for this statement, or are you not?
I accept that you may believe that there is no 'first link' as you call it, but there are many who do not agree with you.
And their disagreement is entirely and utterly baseless.
Its worth pointing out that the 'explanations' that you and others here quite happily give for the existence of life and everything, and expect others to accept, fail on the very same point that you are trying to convince me about.
Which explanations are these?
If that is the case, why is your 'Spartan meritocracy' so complex
It isn't. We need to have a little chat about the meaning of the word Spartan, I think ...
and dependent on so many links that are only surmised?
Such as?
So 'reliably known and firmly based in reason and, especially in this area, evidence' that it makes no judgement on purpose, suggesting that at the best, it is somewhat mechanistic.
Right .... and your point is?
We may know how they came into being (there still seem to be a number of areas where details are debated), but then if you're happy with partial knowledge like that, I suppose that's a sufficient response.
Partial knowledge is better than no knowledge at all.
There are others aspect of existence that your 'knowledge' signally fails to even address such as 'purpose'
Purposes (sic) are proximate, transient and subjective.
Something you seem to be good at, Shaker.
What is?
-
With a few exceptions, theists believe that God is the menns by which existence was initiated.
When you look at this, do you begin to understand why it makes no odds to atheists (like me anyway) whether Jesus was resurrected or not when you're using it as evidence for a god?
No I don't, especially as I don't use the resurrection as evidence for a god. If anything, my thought process is the other way round, as my post explained.
What, that a god is evidence for the resurrection? Yes, that is self explanatory with your "if God, why not" argument. It's just where are you drawing the line so you get to the point where god isn't evidence for something?
-
The idea of my parents having it off is cringe making, having the deity playing voyeur is too much! ;D ;D ;D
Where do you get the idea that the deity played voyeur? To revisit my analogy of the light-bulb, Edison and Latimer wouldn't have seen the light-bulb being created, but without them it may well not have been created.
Well the deity maybe encouraged someone to have it off with Mary and supervised the proceedings, unless of course it bonked her itself, which is somehow unlikely! ;D ;D ;D
-
The idea of my parents having it off is cringe making, having the deity playing voyeur is too much! ;D ;D ;D
Where do you get the idea that the deity played voyeur? To revisit my analogy of the light-bulb, Edison and Latimer wouldn't have seen the light-bulb being created, but without them it may well not have been created.
Well the deity maybe encouraged someone to have it off with Mary and supervised the proceedings, unless of course it bonked her itself, which is somehow unlikely! ;D ;D ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og5HJyHrLXE
Still makes me chuckle :)
O.
-
This forum hadn't existed through the ages. Do Hope can post his good reasons from history without repeating himself.
Otherwise fair point to him - Cym's posts have all gone in the necessary housekeeping so searching would be a waste of his time. Can't think who else he'd be quoting.
-
This forum hadn't existed through the ages. Do Hope can post his good reasons from history without repeating himself.
Capital.
So - we wait.
-
So it's really a sub-branch of Judaism.
Probably as much as one can say that Buddhism is a sub-branch of Hinduism!!
So you're sort of half agreeing with Leonard and half agreeing with BA? I take it you don't entirely support BA's latter-day Marcionism, with his virulent insistence on divorcing the OT from the NT?
Well, no Buddhist would want to be told that Buddhism is 'really a sub-branch of' Hinduism. I happen to believe that this 'sub-branch' idea is too simplistic. As for BA's 'virulent insistence on divorcing the OT from the NT', it would seem to me that he is determined that the God of the OT is not the same as the God of the NT - something I would disagree with.
I'd settle for "A new form of Judaism" - agreeing that the idea of a "sub-branch" is rather simplistic. Well, I'm glad you disagree with BA on his reference to two distinct gods. Someone taxed him on whether he believed the 'demiurge' exists, and he was apparently open to argument. Care to engage with him on this matter? (I've lost patience with such things - except as metaphors.)
-
Hillel went even further in this regard than Jesus.
I would disagree, in that Hillel stayed within the parameters of Torahnic teachings. As such, he expounded the Torah.
Which he reduced to "What is harmful to you, do not do to your neighbour - all else is commentary. Go and study."
Jesus, on the other hand, took those same teachings and punched holes in them by saying that they didn't go far enough. Hence the Sermon on the Mount which radically remoulds the ideas taught in the Torah.
Depends which parts of the NT you read. In addition, the Sermon on the Mount, despite the claims of some for its absolute clarity of teaching, is in fact in parts extremely obscure. Who are the "poor in spirit"? One would hope the believers would be "rich in spirit" - even if poor in everything else.
It also trades on that old fundamentalist standby of 'persecution' - if people are getting at you, you can be sure you're on the right track. Which has on many occasions caused some of a peculiar psychological bent to wind up their fellow creatures so much that it's no wonder people got thoroughly pissed off with them (The 'martyr' Stephen being the first in a long line). However, even in this, Jesus establishes a link with the Old Testament, since he says "for so they persecuted the prophets before you". Which prophets, I wonder - Zoroastrian or Hindu ones? ;)
-
Which he reduced to "What is harmful to you, do not do to your neighbour - all else is commentary. Go and study."
Which, as I said goes nowhere as far as Jesus did.
Depends which parts of the NT you read. In addition, the Sermon on the Mount, despite the claims of some for its absolute clarity of teaching, is in fact in parts extremely obscure. Who are the "poor in spirit"? One would hope the believers would be "rich in spirit" - even if poor in everything else.
The term 'poor in spirit' is 'πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι'. πτωχοὶ has nothing to do with wealth, abundance or lack thereof; it is a word that refers to 'crouching', hence someone who is humble or self-effacing.
It also trades on that old fundamentalist standby of 'persecution' - if people are getting at you, you can be sure you're on the right track.
Lost track of the number of sermons I've heard on the SotM, but never heard this idea before. Please expand on the idea.
Which has on many occasions caused some of a peculiar psychological bent to wind up their fellow creatures so much that it's no wonder people got thoroughly pissed off with them (The 'martyr' Stephen being the first in a long line).
So, you think that telling Jews of the Messiah that they had been waiting centuries for, was 'winding up their fellow creatures'? Again, not a term I'd usually associate with trying to get people to change their way of thinking - not even with those of an atheistic bent here on this forum.
However, even in this, Jesus establishes a link with the Old Testament, since he says "for so they persecuted the prophets before you". Which prophets, I wonder - Zoroastrian or Hindu ones? ;)
If he "establishes a link with the Old Testament", as you say, perhaps you ought to read the Old Testament and see which prophets the Jewish leaders persecuted. I'll give you one for you to start with - Jeremiah.
-
There is no situation in which 'don't eat shellfish because the celestial zombie-wizard will be displeased' is not nonsense.
If you don't object, I'm pinching that for a future quote - attributed, of course :)
But it's a bit of a man of straw, isn't it? No-one believes it isn't nonsense.
-
There is no situation in which 'don't eat shellfish because the celestial zombie-wizard will be displeased' is not nonsense.
If you don't object, I'm pinching that for a future quote - attributed, of course :)
But it's a bit of a man of straw, isn't it? No-one believes it isn't nonsense.
Is it?
Do Orthodox Jews eat shellfish?
-
The idea of my parents having it off is cringe making, having the deity playing voyeur is too much! ;D ;D ;D
Where do you get the idea that the deity played voyeur? To revisit my analogy of the light-bulb, Edison and Latimer wouldn't have seen the light-bulb being created, but without them it may well not have been created.
Well the deity maybe encouraged someone to have it off with Mary and supervised the proceedings, unless of course it bonked her itself, which is somehow unlikely! ;D ;D ;D
Good theological analysis!
-
OK - enough of the old Virgin Mary bollocks!
Mary was introduced into the Jesus story to take the place of the Pagan Goddesses to make the transition from Pagan to Christian smoother.
Just as the early churches in this country were built at the places where pagans worshipped; which is why some of the really early churches have carvings of the Green Man/the Oak King and/or the Sheela na gig in them.
It is also, of course, why so many Christian Holy Days are on what were Pagan festivals - Easter - Ostara; All Hallows - Samhain and why Christmass is also known as Yuletide!
The whole Christianity thing is a Johnny-come-lately compared to paganism.
-
OK - enough of the old Virgin Mary bollocks!
Mary was introduced into the Jesus story to take the place of the Pagan Goddesses to make the transition from Pagan to Christian smoother.
And your evidence for this assertion is ...?
Just as the early churches in this country were built at the places where pagans worshipped; which is why some of the really early churches have carvings of the Green Man/the Oak King and/or the Sheela na gig in them.
It is also, of course, why so many Christian Holy Days are on what were Pagan festivals - Easter - Ostara; All Hallows - Samhain and why Christmass is also known as Yuletide!
But all that doesn't prove that Christianity isn't true. Remember that many of those 'early churches' predate the arrival of Augustine and his corps of priests, so that the church was usually run by the laity - so they would likely use the holy sites that they were used to use foir their church. Add to that the likelihood that sites and dates were probably taken over by pagans from the faiths that predated it, in much the same way as Christianity has done with pagan sites.
The whole Christianity thing is a Johnny-come-lately compared to paganism.
Astronomy is a johnny-come-lately compared to astrology. Does this mean that astology is any more 'true' than astronomy.
Anthropologists are fully aware of this practice of taking over the sites and dates of previously existing societies, somtimes to help the populace to cope with the changes and sometimes because the times of year that such events occur are naturally occurring events (the change of a year, the arrival of new life, the 'death' of the sun; etc.)
This site makes for interesting reading
http://www.sociologyguide.com
and in this area, the
http://www.sociologyguide.com/religion/social-functions-and-dysfunctions-of-religion.php page.
-
Day 6: Still no word on what Hope thinks were/are the "good reasons" why homosexuality "was viewed with revulsion though history and across cultures."
-
He'll tell us I'm sure. It's really important information that's eluded me so far and it'd be wrong not to pass it on.
Unless it doesn't exist, but I'm sure Hope wouldn't tell fibs.
-
I couldn't possibly comment.
-
Which he reduced to "What is harmful to you, do not do to your neighbour - all else is commentary. Go and study."
Which, as I said goes nowhere as far as Jesus did.
Jesus' summary of the commandments amounted to two. The first "Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart....." etc is a trifle misplaced in this largely secular age, when so many not only do not believe, but also have little conception of what "God" is supposed to be. Jesus' second item - his version of the Golden Rule - though noble in intent, has probably had quite a few undesirable side-effects, often deriving from evangelical zeal. Hillel's mandate that one should not harm one's neighbour amounts to an admirable and eminently practical ethos, which if adhered to would probably have left the world a far better place than it is. Which is not to denigrate Jesus - just trying to be objective.
Depends which parts of the NT you read. In addition, the Sermon on the Mount, despite the claims of some for its absolute clarity of teaching, is in fact in parts extremely obscure. Who are the "poor in spirit"? One would hope the believers would be "rich in spirit" - even if poor in everything else.
The term 'poor in spirit' is 'πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι'. πτωχοὶ has nothing to do with wealth, abundance or lack thereof; it is a word that refers to 'crouching', hence someone who is humble or self-effacing.
Oho! So now we all have to be fluent in Koine greek to know what a certain text in the SOTM means? This rather bears out the truth of my original observation - some of the texts therein are rather more obscure than they initially sound.
Having checked in my Interlinear Greek Testament, I see that the words you cite are simply translated as "poor in spirit", without further comment. I suspect few non-believers own an interlinear testament (and probably few believers, too) - so if delving even this far into the obscurities of NT language brings me no further to the "real" meaning, I guess we'll all have to trust that you yourself are on hand to give us the "true" meaning of any difficult passages that arise....
It also trades on that old fundamentalist standby of 'persecution' - if people are getting at you, you can be sure you're on the right track.
Lost track of the number of sermons I've heard on the SotM, but never heard this idea before. Please expand on the idea.
Christ refers to 'persecution' as being a sign for his 'true' disicples several times in the gospels esp. Matt 24. These kinds of prophecies have often been used, particularly in modern fundamentalism, to provoke social reactions against the believers in question (I know the JWs have often used this tactic).
Which has on many occasions caused some of a peculiar psychological bent to wind up their fellow creatures so much that it's no wonder people got thoroughly pissed off with them (The 'martyr' Stephen being the first in a long line).
So, you think that telling Jews of the Messiah that they had been waiting centuries for, was 'winding up their fellow creatures'? Again, not a term I'd usually associate with trying to get people to change their way of thinking - not even with those of an atheistic bent here on this forum.
As I said, the tactic has a long history. Ultimately, telling the Jews that their long expected Messiah had arrived may have been Stephen's principal message, but you'd never believe it from reading the relevant chapter in Acts. Instead of getting to the point, he bores the Jewish authorities to the utmost extremity with a recitation of the history of the Jewish people, with which they were just as well acquainted as he was - probably more - and this through 52 tedious verses. He finishes by calling them "stiff-necked and uncircumcised". I don't wonder they were vexed.
However, even in this, Jesus establishes a link with the Old Testament, since he says "for so they persecuted the prophets before you". Which prophets, I wonder - Zoroastrian or Hindu ones? ;)
If he "establishes a link with the Old Testament", as you say, perhaps you ought to read the Old Testament and see which prophets the Jewish leaders persecuted. I'll give you one for you to start with - Jeremiah.
Sorry, I should not have typed this bit in a post to you - it was really a gentle prod at BA's anti-Old Testament stance. He's very fond of quoting the SOTM, this being a bit of the NT of which he thoroughly approves (you probably know that he's actually quite selective about which bits of the NT he accepts, too - the magic word being "Midrash"). Yet here in his favourite quote is a direct reference by Jesus back to the OT.
-
You presumably think that the deity in which you believe is powerful enough to magic a universe into being out of nothing and to perform parlour tricks such as enabling a virgin to give birth and corpses to come back to life; but when it comes to being able to get across its message to its human creation in an absolutely crystal-clear, transparent way which doesn't allow for ambiguity or error or any other kind of unclarity, its supposed powers suddenly desert it and we're left with a hodge-podge of differing translations, frequently mutually contradictory, in a multiplicity of human languages, made by fallible, information-limited humans who may have an agenda to advance.
This is absolutely spot-on! (And also extremely clearly written :) ). In addition, it relates back to what I was saying about the SOTM in my post above.
-
Thanks Dicky :D
Clarity, clarity, clarity - it's what I strive for, in thought and writing especially.
-
Day 6: Still no word on what Hope thinks were/are the "good reasons" why homosexuality "was viewed with revulsion though history and across cultures."
I suspect the reasons are that; a) there is an element of overt homophobia within some parts of Christianity, and b) here in the UK at least, and in view of social changes here in recent times, they'd rather not talk about it directly (apart that is from making less than subtle throwaway comments).
-
Jesus' summary of the commandments amounted to two. The first "Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart....." etc is a trifle misplaced in this largely secular age, when so many not only do not believe, but also have little conception of what "God" is supposed to be.
So you are happy to use the 'argumentum ad populum' when it happens to fit your perceived view of life (though I would suggest that the numbers of those who believe in a 'God' massively outnumber those who don't.)
Jesus' second item - his version of the Golden Rule - though noble in intent, has probably had quite a few undesirable side-effects, often deriving from evangelical zeal. Hillel's mandate that one should not harm one's neighbour amounts to an admirable and eminently practical ethos, which if adhered to would probably have left the world a far better place than it is. Which is not to denigrate Jesus - just trying to be objective.
Probably no more undesirable side-effects than Hillel's would have caused had it been followed; after all 'evangelical zeal' exists within every philosophy, including atheism.
Oho! So now we all have to be fluent in Koine greek to know what a certain text in the SOTM means? This rather bears out the truth of my original observation - some of the texts therein are rather more obscure than they initially sound.
Well, I'm not fluent in Koine Greek (in fact I'm probably more fluent in Nepali than Koine Greek), but isn't that why we have brains - to investigate and study? Sounds as if you - like others here - want to have everything served up on a plate, so that you don't have to think which, as I've said several times before, smacks of being robots.
Having checked in my Interlinear Greek Testament, I see that the words you cite are simply translated as "poor in spirit", without further comment. I suspect few non-believers own an interlinear testament (and probably few believers, too) - so if delving even this far into the obscurities of NT language brings me no further to the "real" meaning, I guess we'll all have to trust that you yourself are on hand to give us the "true" meaning of any difficult passages that arise....
Yes, I did delve into my Interlinear, but because I have been interested in this whole passage for many years, I have - over the years - delved into other documents, some of which I borrowed from public libraries, some of which I borrowed (and yes, I did return them) from friends and some of which - more recently - I accessed on the internet. Fortunately, there is a very valuable resource easily available on the internet. Its called BibleGateway.com, and through it you can look at a verse or a passage in 44 different English translations (as well as an additional 8 modernised versions - e.g. the KJV is now available as the NewKJV, where language used has been brought into the 20th Century [iirc, it came out in the 1980s]). If you care to check that out - https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%205:3 - you will find that several translations and not only modern ones, refer to humility or acknowledging spiritual poverty, etc.
So, one doesn't have to be fluent in anything other than English or whatever your mother-tongue might be (though the site has a further 63 languages other than English). All one needs is an inquiring mind, a computer and an internet connection - preferably broadband. ;)
Christ refers to 'persecution' as being a sign for his 'true' disicples several times in the gospels esp. Matt 24. These kinds of prophecies have often been used, particularly in modern fundamentalism, to provoke social reactions against the believers in question (I know the JWs have often used this tactic).
Not sure he ever uses it as a 'sign'; he certainly tells them to expect it, but then its fairly common for any radical organisation. Regarding your reference to JWs, I agree that they like to claim to be Christian - but is it actually possible to be Christian when one doesn't acknowledge the core beliefs of Christianity?
As I said, the tactic has a long history. Ultimately, telling the Jews that their long expected Messiah had arrived may have been Stephen's principal message, but you'd never believe it from reading the relevant chapter in Acts. Instead of getting to the point, he bores the Jewish authorities to the utmost extremity with a recitation of the history of the Jewish people, with which they were just as well acquainted as he was - probably more - and this through 52 tedious verses. He finishes by calling them "stiff-necked and uncircumcised". I don't wonder they were vexed.
In fact, I would readily believe that to have been Stephen's primary purpose; after all, he uses the full range of the Jewish Scriptures - which, as you say, the leaders ought to have known like the back of their hands - to show why Jesus was that Messiah. Sometimes one has to explain things in depth.
-
Day 6: Still no word on what Hope thinks were/are the "good reasons" why homosexuality "was viewed with revulsion though history and across cultures."
I suspect the reasons are that; a) there is an element of overt homophobia within some parts of Christianity, and b) here in the UK at least, and in view of social changes here in recent times, they'd rather not talk about it directly (apart that is from making less than subtle throwaway comments).
Indeed.
Whatever the reason, he's leaving it severely alone that's for sure ;)
-
Yes, I did delve into my Interlinear, but because I have been interested in this whole passage for many years, I have - over the years - delved into other documents, some of which I borrowed from public libraries, some of which I borrowed (and yes, I did return them) from friends and some of which - more recently - I accessed on the internet. Fortunately, there is a very valuable resource easily available on the internet. Its called BibleGateway.com, and through it you can look at a verse or a passage in 44 different English translations (as well as an additional 8 modernised versions - e.g. the KJV is now available as the NewKJV, where language used has been brought into the 20th Century [iirc, it came out in the 1980s]). If you care to check that out - https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%205:3 - you will find that several translations and not only modern ones, refer to humility or acknowledging spiritual poverty, etc.
So, one doesn't have to be fluent in anything other than English or whatever your mother-tongue might be (though the site has a further 63 languages other than English). All one needs is an inquiring mind, a computer and an internet connection - preferably broadband. ;)
Can't be doing with all that Googling - whatever would BA say? Instead, this oh so uninquiring poster consulted various translations that he has on his own personal bookshelves. My Casiodoro de Reina Spanish translation just gives "pobres" (poor). My French translation (Louis Segond) gives "pauvres" (poor). My German translation of Hans Bruns seems to add to the text - I think (from memory) it says something like "die wissen das Sie arm in Geist sind" (who know that they are poor in spirit) - which doesn't clarify very much.
J.B. Phillips 'modern English' translation states in his introduction that the original Greek means "beggars in spirit", and translates the phrase in the main text as "the humble-minded" - which is something like you said. But I can't be certain who is right - and neither can you.
Now why you think that the general run of non-believers should spend time on the wild goose chase of determining what an obscure phrase in the gospels actually means, I can't begin to think. I should think I'm quite unusual among non-believers in actually going into the matter this far, but I'm really none the wiser. This all goes to bear out Shaker's basic point that an omniscient God, if really concerned that his message should be delivered unequivocally to humanity, would find some rather less slipshod method than getting people to chase down obscure linguistic routes only to find that nothing is that certain at the end of it.
Ultimately, however, I have to say "Does it matter?" - it seems that you're suggesting that it is only in modern times that people have really been able to translate accurately what the phrase means. Nearly 2000 years of Christianity, and the first verse of the Beatitudes has been misunderstood all that time...
"Blessed are the peace-makers" seems to be beset with relatively few problems, however.
-
Can't be doing with all that Googling - whatever would BA say?
It only takes a minute or two to open Biblegateway, type in the verse one wants and then press the 'Get verse in all translations' button.
Now why you think that the general run of non-believers should spend time on the wild goose chase of determining what an obscure phrase in the gospels actually means, I can't begin to think.
For two reasons: firstly, they expect us to use our brains when it comes to some scientific discovery that is often open to debate - and to hunt around for ourselves to discover whether what they are claiming at any given time is correct/potentially correct; secondly, because they often regard Christians as unthinking and happy to lap up anything and everything they are told.
I should think I'm quite unusual among non-believers in actually going into the matter this far, but I'm really none the wiser. This all goes to bear out Shaker's basic point that an omniscient God, if really concerned that his message should be delivered unequivocally to humanity, would find some rather less slipshod method than getting people to chase down obscure linguistic routes only to find that nothing is that certain at the end of it.
Often they take words/phrases out of context and ask others to explain them, only then to wonder why those explanations don't fit with their particular opinions.
Ultimately, however, I have to say "Does it matter?" - it seems that you're suggesting that it is only in modern times that people have really been able to translate accurately what the phrase means. Nearly 2000 years of Christianity, and the first verse of the Beatitudes has been misunderstood all that time...
Has it? Do you know what 'poor in spirit' meant in the 17th century?
The Bible has only been translated into languages other than Latin in the last 5-600 years, and then the basic English version that produced was regarded as 'Gospel' until about 125 years ago. English is a notoriously imprecise language in some areas (though not in others), so one has to make sure that when referring to it, one isn't making a fool of yourself.
Furthermore, the understanding of Koine Greek was limited in the 16th/17th centuries; archological and other research produced a better understanding by the 19th century, and I understand that it has been sharpened even since then. As a result, more modern translations are making use of more recent understandings.