Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Steve H on August 15, 2016, 10:21:53 PM
-
Christian Zionists - i.e. the staunch defenders of Israel, mostly from the charismatic, fundamentalist and dispensationalist camps - are tiresomely fond of accusing of antisemitism those of us who think that invading someone else's land and chucking them out is not cricket, and if the critics are Jewish themselves, not to be deprived of their favourite knee-jerk response, they accuse them of being self-hating Jews. I think it's about time to turn the tables on them. It is possible to be a Christian Zionist and an antisemite, as appears to have been the case with the recently clog-popped Tim LaHaye, who was a defender of Israel against all comers, but who also once said that it was a pity that so many brilliant Jewish minds had cleaved to ideologies which were harmful to humanity, which is an antisemitic statement if ever there was one: it's true, of course, but no more so than it is of brilliant minds in general, so why did he specify Jewish ones?
As a matter of fact, belief in Israel as the eternally-promised homeland of the Jews, and that the return of the Jews to Israel is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ, dovetails neatly with one particular manifestation of antisemitism: that which says that, since the Jews now have Israel, they should all be there, and not here. There is a hint of this in those nutty Christian groups which try to persuade Jewish people to emigrate to Israel, and provide help in doing so. It is certainly true that the existence of Israel can encourage antisemitism: there used to be a Jewish community in Iraq - it was small, but very ancient, probably dating all the way back to the first-century diaspora. It doesn't exist any more, because Saddam Hussein chucked them all out, specifically arguing that they could go an live in Israel, so they had no grounds for complaint. That, presumably, is precisely what they did, but the point is that you shouldn't treat people as political pawns like that.
-
As you might expect, I am in complete agreement with you on this issue Steve.
-
Christian Zionists - i.e. the staunch defenders of Israel, mostly from the charismatic, fundamentalist and dispensationalist camps - are tiresomely fond of accusing of antisemitism those of us who think that invading someone else's land and chucking them out is not cricket, and if the critics are Jewish themselves, not to be deprived of their favourite knee-jerk response, they accuse them of being self-hating Jews. I think it's about time to turn the tables on them. It is possible to be a Christian Zionist and an antisemite, as appears to have been the case with the recently clog-popped Tim LaHaye, who was a defender of Israel against all comers, but who also once said that it was a pity that so many brilliant Jewish minds had cleaved to ideologies which were harmful to humanity, which is an antisemitic statement if ever there was one: it's true, of course, but no more so than it is of brilliant minds in general, so why did he specify Jewish ones?
As a matter of fact, belief in Israel as the eternally-promised homeland of the Jews, and that the return of the Jews to Israel is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ, dovetails neatly with one particular manifestation of antisemitism: that which says that, since the Jews now have Israel, they should all be there, and not here. There is a hint of this in those nutty Christian groups which try to persuade Jewish people to emigrate to Israel, and provide help in doing so. It is certainly true that the existence of Israel can encourage antisemitism: there used to be a Jewish community in Iraq - it was small, but very ancient, probably dating all the way back to the first-century diaspora. It doesn't exist any more, because Saddam Hussein chucked them all out, specifically arguing that they could go an live in Israel, so they had no grounds for complaint. That, presumably, is precisely what they did, but the point is that you shouldn't treat people as political pawns like that.
Steve, are there any Zionists who aren't Christians?
-
Steve will be back later on to speak for himself but, yes, of course the majority of Zionists are Jewish people and not Christian. Christian Zionists are a different kettle of fish altogether.
I have a couple of links for anyone who is interested, it is indeed an interesting and complex subject:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Zionism/zionism.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Christian Zionism: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35747.htm
This one embraces Christian Zionism with Biblical references, worth scrolling down a bit to get to the nitty gritty: http://www.equip.org/article/modern-israel-in-bible-prophecy-promised-return-or-impending-exile/
Anti-semitism accusations: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36160928
About Palestine: http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early.php
(Several links which is a bit of a bore but people can pick and choose which, if any, they read.)
-
Thanks for the links.
Yes, of course there are non-Christian Zionists.
-
As you might expect, I am in complete agreement with you on this issue Steve.
Not sure what the issue Steve is raising - all Jews to go to Israel?
-
YA ZIG HEIL ?!?!!?
ETC ETC DOH ?!?!!?!? ;) ::) :o
-
YA ZIG HEIL ?!?!!?
ETC ETC DOH ?!?!!?!? ;) ::) :o
eh?
-
Jack if you read Steve's post again he is quite clearly NOT saying all Jews should go to Israel, he is actually exasperated with those who do believe that.
Trippy, what are you on? Not very helpful, nor courteous to a new poster who has started a thread worthy of serious discussion.
-
Didn't someone else want rid of the Jews once- not so long ago ?!!?!?!?
DOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
-
Where dya get the idea I was accusing HIM of anything???
Now I recall why I'm so infrequent on these boards ?!?!?!!?
-
I didn't say you were accusing him of anything: first para of my post was addressed to someone else, second para was to you. Your response was somewhat childish, you didn't actually say anything!
Anyway let's not derail the thread which could actually be quite interesting.
-
Didn't someone else want rid of the Jews once- not so long ago ?!!?!?!?
DOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
What the fuck are you wittering on about, you half-wit?
-
I always thought that the state of Israel was primarily created for the protection of Jews. Zionism is wrong- hopefully people are aware of that.
-
Agreed Brownie
SteveH can suck my........
-
Zionism is profoundly un-Christian. Theologically it makes no sense whatsoever and counts as rank heresy along with Arianism, Iconoclasm etc. By denying that the Church is the true Israel of God it effectively denies salvation by grace and implies that God regards people merely by the fact that they have had their foreskin removed, don't eat pork etc. That's not to mention the injustices suffered by the Palestinian people, many of whom are Christians, but then they are the wrong type of Christian for the Zionists: the ancient type.
-
Jack if you read Steve's post again he is quite clearly NOT saying all Jews should go to Israel, he is actually exasperated with those who do believe that.
So does that mean that the jews should get the fuck out of Palestine and leave it for the Palestinians?
-
The thread is about Christian Zionism and it's implications.
West Bank and the Gaza Strip are Palestinian. The State of Palestine has as much right to exist and be supported as does Israel, surely.
-
It is possible to be a Christian Zionist and an antisemite, as appears to have been the case with the recently clog-popped Tim LaHaye, who was a defender of Israel against all comers, but who also once said that it was a pity that so many brilliant Jewish minds had cleaved to ideologies which were harmful to humanity, which is an antisemitic statement if ever there was one: it's true, of course, but no more so than it is of brilliant minds in general, so why did he specify Jewish ones?
I disagree with this point. I would argue that it would seem to be an antisemitic statement if he had said that the cleaving to harmful ideologies is caused by their Jewishness, or if he said this was a particular Jewish problem, but he doesn't say that. I would disagree that using the phrase "so many brilliant Jewish minds" think X, Y or Z negative thoughts, which doesn't suggest other minds don't also think those thoughts too, should be considered a problematic statement.
Of course others are free to disagree with my preference and see those words as antisemitic - words are often defined by consensus or official interpretation especially when used as part of legislation.
As a matter of fact, belief in Israel as the eternally-promised homeland of the Jews, and that the return of the Jews to Israel is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ, dovetails neatly with one particular manifestation of antisemitism: that which says that, since the Jews now have Israel, they should all be there, and not here. There is a hint of this in those nutty Christian groups which try to persuade Jewish people to emigrate to Israel, and provide help in doing so. It is certainly true that the existence of Israel can encourage antisemitism: there used to be a Jewish community in Iraq - it was small, but very ancient, probably dating all the way back to the first-century diaspora. It doesn't exist any more, because Saddam Hussein chucked them all out, specifically arguing that they could go an live in Israel, so they had no grounds for complaint. That, presumably, is precisely what they did, but the point is that you shouldn't treat people as political pawns like that.
There seem to be certain almost "nihilistic" groups, including some Muslim ones, who see the existence of the country, Israel, as some kind of opening ceremony to the end of the world - and are strangely looking forward to getting the show on the road.
-
The thread is about Christian Zionism and it's implications.
West Bank and the Gaza Strip are Palestinian. The State of Palestine has as much right to exist and be supported as does Israel, surely.
Yes - but which definition of the state of Palestine do you mean?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine
a quick wiki shows that even a basic definition depends on time and interpretation. Some would argue that the existence of Israel negates the existence of Palestine as it is historically defined.
-
I got this from wiki, Trent, and what constitutes Palestine is disputed:
The State of Palestine claims the West Bank (bordering Israel and Jordan) and Gaza Strip (bordering Israel and Egypt)[3] with East Jerusalem as the designated capital.[ii][4][5] Most of the areas claimed by the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War.[8] Its independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Algiers as a government-in-exile.
It's the position of the Christian Zionists which is challenged in the op.
-
I got this from wiki, Trent, and what constitutes Palestine is disputed:
The State of Palestine claims the West Bank (bordering Israel and Jordan) and Gaza Strip (bordering Israel and Egypt)[3] with East Jerusalem as the designated capital.[ii][4][5] Most of the areas claimed by the State of Palestine have been occupied by Israel since 1967 in the aftermath of the Six-Day War.[8] Its independence was declared on 15 November 1988 by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Algiers as a government-in-exile.
It's the position of the Christian Zionists which is challenged in the op.
I know that but your previous post said that both states had a right to exist. So the question is, exist in what form?
The very definitions of the states are disputed by both sides. Which definitions do you choose?
-
Trent, if Palestinians were settled in an area for many years I believe they should be able to claim it as theirs without fear of being turfed out by the Israelis.
There must be enough room for both, surely.
Gabriella said:
There seem to be certain almost "nihilistic" groups, including some Muslim ones, who see the existence of the country, Israel, as some kind of opening ceremony to the end of the world - and are strangely looking forward to getting the show on the road.
That is very true with the city of Jerusalem playing a central part. The "Christian Zionists" are particularly strong on this but so are many Jewish sects and, as Gabriella said, some Muslims.
I came across this quite a lot on forums some years ago with Christians claiming Jerusalem as "ours".
-
Jack if you read Steve's post again he is quite clearly NOT saying all Jews should go to Israel, he is actually exasperated with those who do believe that.
Trippy, what are you on? Not very helpful, nor courteous to a new poster who has started a thread worthy of serious discussion.
But that is not exactly a primary issue in this arena is it? I was expecting something with a lot more 'meat' on it. But as I couldn't see it (or missed it) I was left a bit flummoxed with his post.
-
Why do they think that the return of the Jews to Israel should be a physical thing and not a spiritual one? Where Jew isn't the race but the believer in Christ and all that. Didn't Christ condemn the Jews?
-
Why do they think that the return of the Jews to Israel should be a physical thing and not a spiritual one? Where Jew isn't the race but the believer in Christ and all that. Didn't Christ condemn the Jews?
Indeed, which is the point I made above. The Church is the true Israel of God..
-
So does that mean that the jews should get the fuck out of Palestine and leave it for the Palestinians?
Yes. Well, no, but something along those lines.
-
Why do they think that the return of the Jews to Israel should be a physical thing and not a spiritual one? Where Jew isn't the race but the believer in Christ and all that. Didn't Christ condemn the Jews?
It might be worth quoting part of Genesis 17:
1When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almightya ; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”
3Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4“As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5No longer will you be called Abramb ; your name will be Abraham,c for I have made you a father of many nations. 6I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
9Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
-
So basically these Christian Zionists are funding the Israelis in the hope of hurrying along the apocalypse..
-
That is my opinion Thrud but I say it cautiously as there are some Christian Zionists who do not have quite the same agenda.
.................
Spud I was very pleased to read your post with the Biblical exegesis, I had thought, "Where is Sassy when we need her", because I am sure she would have plenty of Biblical support, but yours are very good. It is not unreasonable for people to post Biblical quotes in support of their beliefs, in the Religion and Ethics section.
(I don't believe for one minute that every "Zionist" has a scriptural agenda)
-
So basically these Christian Zionists are funding the Israelis in the hope of hurrying along the apocalypse..
Which, if I recall correctly, they will miss due to being raptured just beforehand?
-
That is my opinion Thrud but I say it cautiously as there are some Christian Zionists who do not have quite the same agenda.
.................
Spud I was very pleased to read your post with the Biblical exegesis, I had thought, "Where is Sassy when we need her", because I am sure she would have plenty of Biblical support, but yours are very good. It is not unreasonable for people to post Biblical quotes in support of their beliefs, in the Religion and Ethics section.
(I don't believe for one minute that every "Zionist" has a scriptural agenda)
The challenge though is to explain why the promise of Genesis 17:8 doesn't apply now.
-
The challenge though is to explain why the promise of Genesis 17:8 doesn't apply now.
Why not quote Captain Kirk in episode three, series one of Star Trek?
ippy
-
It might be worth quoting part of Genesis 17:
1When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the Lord appeared to him and said, “I am God Almightya ; walk before me faithfully and be blameless. 2Then I will make my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers.”
3Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4“As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5No longer will you be called Abramb ; your name will be Abraham,c for I have made you a father of many nations. 6I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8The whole land of Canaan, where you now reside as a foreigner, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
9Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
Then it seems that all the Christians should go to their GP and get the op. And then move house to Israel.
So the spiritual amongst you this makes Jesus' (Christianity) position iffy as it seems to say they aren't the real McCoy.
-
OK.. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35747.htm basically sums up what is wrong with Christ believing zionists..
What about the Jewish Zionists, are they Christians?
-
Zionism is profoundly un-Christian. Theologically it makes no sense whatsoever and counts as rank heresy along with Arianism, Iconoclasm etc. By denying that the Church is the true Israel of God it effectively denies salvation by grace and implies that God regards people merely by the fact that they have had their foreskin removed, don't eat pork etc. That's not to mention the injustices suffered by the Palestinian people, many of whom are Christians, but then they are the wrong type of Christian for the Zionists: the ancient type.
Yes, the term 'Christian Zionists' is an oxymoron. The Talmud of Zionism is anti-Christian.
-
Oooooo. found this: http://tinyurl.com/p5sxa5y
Will give it a proper read in the morning, but it looks quite useful as starting point.
-
Why do they think that the return of the Jews to Israel should be a physical thing and not a spiritual one? Where Jew isn't the race but the believer in Christ and all that. Didn't Christ condemn the Jews?
Spot-on, Jack.... for an atheist you have amazing insight.
Christ condemned the Jews because the Pharisees and Sadducees that he was addressing were followers of the Talmud and not the Torah.
-
Christ condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees, at least the ones we hear about in the scriptures, because they stuck to the letter of the law rather than the spirit but he had great respect for the law, just not the way those particular people practised it.
The Talmud as we know it was compiled in the 2nd century AD so was not relevant when Christ walked the earth.
There is nothing inherently wrong with religious Jewish people using the Talmud as a guide.
We must beware of straying into antisemitism over this issue. There are Christian zionists who seem to use the 'Jews' in their belief system, something that Jewish people probably find laudable but that's an aside, and they are dangerous imo. However most people concerned with Israel/Palestinian conflict are not religious, they have their own agendas.
Add: Spud, Genesis 17:8 is something which people apply today if it suits them to do so. There is so much in the passage you quote that is open to different interpretation: Abraham's seed - does that mean all Jewish people, regardless of ethnic diversity, or does it refer to Christ? Is the land of Canaan representative of a spiritual kingdom rather than a physical one? We could go on endessly.
-
The challenge though is to explain why the promise of Genesis 17:8 doesn't apply now.
Why should it apply now? It was a fictional promise made up by whoever wrote that part of Genesis and it's caused no end of trouble in the last 100 years. The British basically destabilised the whole of the middle East for a superstition.
-
I have nothing against Jews as a race. I don't like the way Israel has treated the Palestinians over the years since Israel was created. I firmly believe it was a mistake not to create a homeland for the Palestinians at the same time.
The idea that Jews are special because the Biblical god is supposed to favour them is of course a stupid idea, they are no more special than any other people on Earth.
-
Christ condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees, at least the ones we hear about in the scriptures, because they stuck to the letter of the law rather than the spirit but he had great respect for the law, just not the way those particular people practised it.
Yes, I'm with you here.
The Talmud as we know it was compiled in the 2nd century AD so was not relevant when Christ walked the earth.
True. But the well known warning of Jesus Christ about the tradition of men that voids Scripture (Mark 7:1-13), is in fact, a direct reference to the Talmud, or more specifically, the forerunner of the first part of it, the Mishnah, which existed in oral form during Christ's lifetime, before being committed to writing. Mark 7:1-13 represents Our Lord's pointed condemnation of the Mishnah.
There is nothing inherently wrong with religious Jewish people using the Talmud as a guide.
Disagree here; the Talmudic commentary on the Bible is their supreme law, and not the Bible itself. That commentary does indeed, as Jesus said, void the laws of God, not uphold them. The Pharisees teach for doctrine the commandments of rabbis, not God. For example:
Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a Gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a Gentile he may keep.
Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a Gentile the wages owed him for work.
Gittin 69a. To heal his flesh a Jew should take dust that lies within the shadow of an outdoor toilet, mix it with honey and eat it.
Sanhedrin 55b. A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).
Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.
Jews of the Torah will have nothing to do with the above.
-
Why should it apply now? It was a fictional promise made up by whoever wrote that part of Genesis and it's caused no end of trouble in the last 100 years. The British basically destabilised the whole of the middle East for a superstition.
The British position can be seen in the Balfour Declaration of 1917:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
-
SweetPea, we really need some Jewish posters to give more insight. However they always say, "Where there are two Jews there are three opinions", so in the event we might still be no further forward! Nevertheless I don't feel sufficiently confident to speak with authority on the Mishnah, the Gemara etc, I only know what I have read over the years. As a Christian I would be arrogant if I said this or that was wrong about any school of Jewish teaching, particularly if I brought Christ into it.
Spud, thanks for printing the extract from Balfour Declaration of 1917; this bit is particularly pertinent: "... nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,...". I certainly agree with that.
Now I am going to leave this discussion to others who know a bit more than I.
-
Spot-on, Jack.... for an atheist you have amazing insight.
Christ condemned the Jews because the Pharisees and Sadducees that he was addressing were followers of the Talmud and not the Torah.
So going back to the quotes Spud gave who banned circumcision for the Christians, if they are suppose to be the chosen people of God?
-
Jack, Christians are not banned from being circumcised, they are just not obliged to be circumcised. We believe it is not something that will aid our salvation in any way and Paul speaks of this many times in the NT; he did however ask one of his followers, Timothy, who was partly Jewish, to be circumcised so that he could mix freely with and evangelise Jews (Acts 16).
Plenty of Christian men are circumcised and in some countries it is a cultural norm. It is just not a necessary part of the practice of Christian faith, the emphasis being more on a spiritual covenant than a physical one.
(Floo, the Jews are not a 'race', there is considerable racial diversity, they consider themselves, collectively, to be 'a people'.)
-
Christians absolutely should not be circumcised, otherwise they become slaves to the law and they have no salvation in Christ. We have the sacraments of Christian initiation (baptism, confirmation/chrismation and holy communion).
-
Christians absolutely should not be circumcised, otherwise they become slaves to the law and they have no salvation in Christ. We have the sacraments of Christian initiation (baptism, confirmation/chrismation and holy communion).
No converts allowed then, if on inspection, they have that particular physical feature?
-
Christians absolutely should not be circumcised, otherwise they become slaves to the law and they have no salvation in Christ. We have the sacraments of Christian initiation (baptism, confirmation/chrismation and holy communion).
What about on medical grounds?
-
Of course Christians can be circumcised, I don't know what ad_o is talking about unless he means that we are no longer under that particular law, with which I agree. Loads of Christians are circumcised throughout the world for all sorts of reasons but in the case of Christians, it is not a religious requirement as it is for Jewish people (& for Muslims). Anything that smacked of slavery to 'the law' (circumcision not being the only one), was discouraged in the early days of Christianity but not forbidden and there is nothing inherently wrong with the practice. There are several Biblical references, I'll find them.
Paul speaking: Galatians: 2 1-5 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. NIV
Here is the reference to Timothy, mentioned earlier: Acts 16:3: Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. ESV
There are numerous Biblical references to circumcision but not much point in me printing them all here because if anyone is interested they can google for themselves.
It's quite clear that circumcision is not necessary for Christians but not wrong in itself.
Even the covenant with Abraham was first and foremost a spiritual thing, the circumcision was an outward sign of the covenant so that he and his descendants, as God's chosen, were set apart from others.
-
Of course Christians can be circumcised, I don't know what ad_o is talking about unless he means that we are no longer under that particular law, with which I agree. Loads of Christians are circumcised throughout the world for all sorts of reasons but in the case of Christians, it is not a religious requirement as it is for Jewish people (& for Muslims). There are several Biblical references, I'll find them.
Yes surely Ao isn't suggesting that having a foreskin is a requirement for salvation.
-
Circumcision should only be done for medical reasons, definitely NOT for religious ones, and never without an anaesthetic.
-
The British position can be seen in the Balfour Declaration of 1917:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
But it was laughable. They wouldn't have considered such a declaration for any other group of people on the basis of a myth.
-
But it was laughable. They wouldn't have considered such a declaration for any other group of people on the basis of a myth.
Exactly!
-
Yes surely Ao isn't suggesting that having a foreskin is a requirement for salvation.
:o No, he said quite the opposite Vlad "Christians absolutely should not be circumcised".
Floo, what you say is right imo but what we are discussing here is the relevance or otherwise of circumcision as a religious requirement which is something quite different.
-
What sort of god would create a foreskin then decree it should be cut off, only one which delights in pain and suffering.
-
Looks like a good time to roll out the attempted murder of Moses by God and the use of a foreskin to save him story
http://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/exodus/passage/?q=exodus+4:24-26
-
So kind and compassionate!
-
:o No, he said quite the opposite Vlad "Christians absolutely should not be circumcised".
Floo, what you say is right imo but what we are discussing here is the relevance or otherwise of circumcision as a religious requirement which is something quite different.
I'll reword it for your benefit. Christians absolutely should not GET circumcised. The Apostle makes this absolutely clear in his epistle to the Galations, if I remember correctly.
-
But it was laughable. They wouldn't have considered such a declaration for any other group of people on the basis of a myth.
It was mainly done in order to win the First World War. In order to avoid stalemate and enable an Allied victory, Britain appealed to Jews worldwide to support the war against Germany, by promising them a Jewish state.
David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister from 1916-22, reflected in 1937 that "in this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause."
-
I'll reword it for your benefit. Christians absolutely should not GET circumcised. The Apostle makes this absolutely clear in his epistle to the Galations, if I remember correctly.
It doesn't matter what the not so good book has to say on the topic, it is a matter of what is right. Circumcision should only be performed on any male of whatever faith for medical reasons.
-
I respectfully disagree with what Ad_o says - unless he means that infants should not have to undergo circumcision for religious reasons; I agree with that but that isn't what he's saying. I've not read anything generally forbidding the procedure, only that it is not necessary.
What Paul says in Galatians is: (New International Version)
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.
He also says if one is circumcised for religious reasons they might as well embrace the entire law. In other words, circumcision does nothing spiritually. He's is trying to encourage followers of Christ not to cling onto their old traditions (which can be somewhat superstitious). Well I would agree there, but circumcision isn't strictly forbidden and there are many other non-religious reasons for it.
-
It was mainly done in order to win the First World War.
huh?
In order to avoid stalemate and enable an Allied victory, Britain appealed to Jews worldwide to support the war against Germany, by promising them a Jewish state.
Oh dear. You really believe that?
David Lloyd George, British Prime Minister from 1916-22, reflected in 1937 that "in this critical situation it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause."
Oh dear. He really believed that?
Anyway, the Jews didn't get Israel until 30 years later. It was a stupid idea driven by a myth from a 2,500 year old book. No other group would have been granted a new country on that basis.
-
:o No, he said quite the opposite Vlad "Christians absolutely should not be circumcised".
That's not the opposite of what Vlad said.
-
Me:
Quote from: Vlad and his ilk. on Today at 10:04:27 AM
Yes surely Ao isn't suggesting that having a foreskin is a requirement for salvation.
:o No, he said quite the opposite Vlad "Christians absolutely should not be circumcised".
Seems clear to me what Vlad said and what I replied. Perhaps I should have said, "Yes, he said quite the opposite, Vlad...", instead of "No,...".
Whatever, let's not get bogged down. If I misunderstood, apologies.
-
Me:
Quote from: Vlad and his ilk. on Today at 10:04:27 AM
Yes surely Ao isn't suggesting that having a foreskin is a requirement for salvation.
:o No, he said quite the opposite Vlad "Christians absolutely should not be circumcised".
Seems clear to me what Vlad said and what I replied. Perhaps I should have said, "Yes, he said quite the opposite, Vlad...", instead of "No,...".
Whatever, let's not get bogged down. If I misunderstood, apologies.
What Vlad said was an expression of disbelief that Ad O would make such a looney suggestion not a statement of what Ad O actually said.
-
huh?
In 1903, Britain offered to give them 5000 square miles of territory in British East Africa, for their protection. They declined because they believed they had the right to Palestine.
Oh dear. You really believe that?
Don't know.
Oh dear. He really believed that?
He said it.
Anyway, the Jews didn't get Israel until 30 years later.
But it was promised to them in 1917 for the reason stated in my last post: the British government believed that the Jews (those living in America, Russia and even Germany) could influence the outcome of the war, if they were offered Palestine as their homeland.
It was a stupid idea driven by a myth from a 2,500 year old book.
The 'myth' states that the world would be blessed through Abraham's seed. This was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ. God's glory was in the Temple until the Exile, when it left and didn't return until Jesus came. Jesus then left it desolate (Matthew 23) and so it is no longer a sacred site and belongs to whoever can hold it.
No other group would have been granted a new country on that basis.
As I said, the original purpose of the British offer of land in East Africa that was part of the British Empire, was to protect Jews, because they were being persecuted. They were eventually given Palestine on the basis that they wouldn't accept anywhere else. (Although there were also strategic reasons)
-
In 1903, Britain offered to give them 5000 square miles of territory in British East Africa, for their protection. They declined because they believed they had the right to Palestine.
Don't know.He said it.
But it was promised to them in 1917 for the reason stated in my last post.The 'myth' states that the world would be blessed through Abraham's seed. Thus was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ. God's glory was in the Temple until the Exile, when it left and didn't return until Jesus came. Jesus then left it desolate (Matthew 23) and so it is no longer a sacred site.As I said, the original purpose of the British was to protect Jews, because they were being persecuted. They were eventually given Palestine on the basis that they wouldn't accept anywhere else.
Well tough, they shouldn't have been given Palestine!
-
Jack, Christians are not banned from being circumcised, they are just not obliged to be circumcised. We believe it is not something that will aid our salvation in any way and Paul speaks of this many times in the NT; he did however ask one of his followers, Timothy, who was partly Jewish, to be circumcised so that he could mix freely with and evangelise Jews (Acts 16).
Plenty of Christian men are circumcised and in some countries it is a cultural norm. It is just not a necessary part of the practice of Christian faith, the emphasis being more on a spiritual covenant than a physical one.
(Floo, the Jews are not a 'race', there is considerable racial diversity, they consider themselves, collectively, to be 'a people'.)
I meant it in reference to the Biblical quote that Spud gave. Someone in the early days had to go against what they would have seen as holy scripture; something given to Abraham from God.
-
Christians absolutely should not be circumcised, otherwise they become slaves to the law and they have no salvation in Christ. We have the sacraments of Christian initiation (baptism, confirmation/chrismation and holy communion).
So what about the quote from Spud then? Did God get it wrong or told Abraham a lie; a bit of primal spin.
-
No converts allowed then, if on inspection, they have that particular physical feature?
There's always plastic surgery!
-
Ah, fairynuff Jeremy. Sorry Vlad. Jack I get your point too in your post two before last.
Floo, I don't think it is wrong for the Jewish people to have somewhere to call their own, considering what persecution they have suffered, also the place being in that part of the world which is important to many of them. What I object to is the Palestinians being put out! One would think the Israelis would be content to live side by side with others (some are of course), but the way it has all panned out is horrendous. Nevertheless, in principal, I believe in the State of Israel.
We are all talking about the religious aspects of Zionism but we must remember that Israel is a secular state and vast numbers of Jews are not religious at all.
-
What sort of god would create a foreskin then decree it should be cut off, only one which delights in pain and suffering.
Quite. God was basically saying Its creation wasn't perfect.
-
Let's be deadly serious for a minute, there must be men on this forum who are circumcised and women who have men who've been circumcised. Did they suffer?
(My husband is circumcised and has no idea why, remembers nothing about it. Must have happened when he was a baby. He's not Jewish.)
-
I have said this on this forum before.
Routine circumcision of male neonates was an American fad which crossed the Atlantic to English speaking countries but which (mercifully) went nowhere else. Among its protagonists was one John Harvey Kellogg (yes, that's him) who was a physician who believed that sexual activity for any purpose other than direct reproduction was wrong. He believed that sexual activity was dangerous and destructive and a waste of energies which could be put to better uses.
He advocated circumcision because he claimed it would reduce sensations and the interest the growing boy would have in masturbation. He is also reported as suggesting a drop of phenol on an infant girl's clitoris for the same reason.
He invented corn flakes as a breakfast cereal because they would give a sensation of fullness without providing any nutrition (energy which might be wasted in sex!)
Later on, the argument for circumcision was given impetus by the belief that removal of prepuce would reduce propensity to venereal disease - and it was this belief that fuelled its acceptance in the United Kingdom. Presumably it was not adopted in continental Europe because their doctors did not read many English language medical journals.
When I was at school during the 1950s the majority of boys were circumcised. It was done as a matter of routine by the midwives who managed home deliveries (the great majority of births). No physician was ever involved. The midwife would ask the mother if she "wanted him done" and that was that. She carried a special little implement in her black bag to enable her to perform the task.
It was done through a conspiracy of women. It seems bizarre that one of the first acts a mother would perform on her new born son was to give him the experience of intense pain.
-
Well I never knew that, I feel quite queasy now, gone right off cornflakes.
(Hee hee, will have to tell my old man why he has a bit missing.)
HH said: "It was done as a matter of routine by the midwives who managed home deliveries (the great majority of births). No physician was ever involved. The midwife would ask the mother if she "wanted him done" and that was that. She carried a special little implement in her black bag to enable her to perform the task. "
Midwives relied on tips back then.....0:)
-
So what about the quote from Spud then? Did God get it wrong or told Abraham a lie; a bit of primal spin.
It was for a certain people for a certain time. Christ instituted new sacraments of initiation.
-
Midwives relied on tips back then.....0:)
... and home deliveries are done by Amazon not by midwives ...
-
Let's be deadly serious for a minute, there must be men on this forum who are circumcised and women who have men who've been circumcised. Did they suffer?
(My husband is circumcised and has no idea why, remembers nothing about it. Must have happened when he was a baby. He's not Jewish.)
My husband and his older brother were circumcised by the midwife as babies. Their evangelical Christian parents wanted them done as they thought that was what God required No doubt it was painful, but of course they don't remember that now, but that is no excuse for having had it done for no better reason than thinking the sky fairy wished it.
-
In most cases Floo, religion had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to circumcise. It was really not much more than a fashion decision: the fashion was to have your boys circumcised.
There was a belief that they were doing the right thing for their little boys. That it would be "better" for them.
It was almost certainly not a "parental" decision, I doubt that men were ever consulted - baby care was not their responsibility.
-
In most cases Floo, religion had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to circumcise. It was really not much more than a fashion decision: the fashion was to have your boys circumcised.
There was a belief that they were doing the right thing for their little boys. That it would be "better" for them.
It was almost certainly not a "parental" decision, I doubt that men were ever consulted - baby care was not their responsibility.
In my husband's case it was definitely a parental decision. His mother told me about it.
-
From what I've heard, circumcision is still common practice in the States.
In African countries it is routinely done, not for religious reasons but cultural.
Ah well.
Mr Kellogg was certainly mistaken in thinking that circumcision stops shenanigans.
-
The 'myth'
No need for the scare quotes.
states that the world would be blessed through Abraham's seed. This was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ.
So what, it was still a disastrous way to guide 20th century geopolitics.
God's glory was in the Temple until the Exile, when it left and didn't return until Jesus came. Jesus then left it desolate (Matthew 23) and so it is no longer a sacred site and belongs to whoever can hold it.As I said, the original purpose of the British offer of land in East Africa that was part of the British Empire, was to protect Jews, because they were being persecuted. They were eventually given Palestine on the basis that they wouldn't accept anywhere else. (Although there were also strategic reasons)
They were lucky that anybody was offering them anything. Other displaced peoples don't get to be given free countries 2,500 years after their ancestors lost control of them the first time.
-
Reading this thread made me wonder when Sass will be back from wherever she's gone; regardless of what some posters think about her long quotes, she grasps and conveys the meaning/message behind the Biblical stories very well..
(I do realise "the meaning" will not be worth anything to a non-believer but even so it is interesting and helpful in understanding people's beliefs better.)
-
Reading this thread made me wonder when Sass will be back from wherever she's gone; regardless of what some posters think about her long quotes, she grasps and conveys the meaning/message behind the Biblical stories very well..
(I do realise "the meaning" will not be worth anything to a non-believer but even so it is interesting and helpful in understanding people's beliefs better.)
Just to note as per post in Banned Posters thread, link below, Sassy is currently suspended
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=6939.50
-
The 'myth' states that the world would be blessed through Abraham's seed. This was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ. God's glory was in the Temple until the Exile, when it left and didn't return until Jesus came. Jesus then left it desolate (Matthew 23) and so it is no longer a sacred site and belongs to whoever can hold it.
Not much of a prophecy, was it!
According to the Old Goat Herder's Book of Myths and Fairy Tales, there were 42 generations between Abraham and Jesus.
A quick calculation suggests that if each individual in each generation had just two children, by the time of Jesus, Abraham's seed would have accounted for than 400,000,000,0000 individuals. Just about anyone on Planet Earth alive at that time would have been qualified to fulfil the prophecy. Most, I suspect, several times over.
And for that THAT we have the international instability that now afflicts us?
-
It was for a certain people for a certain time. Christ instituted new sacraments of initiation.
That is not what God said in the quote that Spud put up. It said It would accept none other than those with this sign, else they would have broken Its covenant. God also says it is an everlasting covenant.
From Spud's post:-
13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
-
My husband and his older brother were circumcised by the midwife as babies. Their evangelical Christian parents wanted them done as they thought that was what God required No doubt it was painful, but of course they don't remember that now, but that is no excuse for having had it done for no better reason than thinking the sky fairy wished it.
Floo does your husband ever go out wearing a white scarf?
ippy
-
That is not what God said in the quote that Spud put up. It said It would accept none other than those with this sign, else they would have broken Its covenant. God also says it is an everlasting covenant.
From Spud's post:-
13Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
The Gospels tell us that God instituted a new covenant. Christ shows us that the Jews didn't understand God's covenant with Abraham at all. They are slaves to law and will be condemned bybthe law unless they convert to Christ. Circumcision of the flesh is not necessary to be a descendent of Abraham. Faith in Jesus Christ and a circumcised heart through baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity is what makes us descendents of Abraham.
-
Errr .... how do you circumcise a heart?
-
Paul speaks about that in Romans 2, saying that circumcision as practiced by the Jews is an outward sign of the covenant with the Lord, however if they are sinful the circumcision is of no value. His argument is that we need to focus on the spiritual rather than physical and if we allow the Holy Spirit into our hearts we will be purified; he uses "circumcision" as a metaphor for this.
(And before anyone says, when he speaks of "heart" he does not mean the muscular organ in the middle of our chest)
-
Paul speaks about that in Romans 2, saying that circumcision as practiced by the Jews is an outward sign of the covenant with the Lord, however if they are sinful the circumcision is of no value. His argument is that we need to focus on the spiritual rather than physical and if we allow the Holy Spirit into our hearts we will be purified; he uses "circumcision" as a metaphor for this.
(And before anyone says, when he speaks of "heart" he does not mean the muscular organ in the middle of our chest)
So what does he mean?
And why is 'he' right?
-
Christians cannot be tied to the old traditions which are meaningless without inner conviction.
-
Christians cannot be tied to the old traditions which are meaningless without inner conviction.
so inner conviction is the thing that determines whether someone is a Christian? So the Westboro Baptists are Christians?
and is a_o lacking the inner conviction? Or is he right that if you are circumcised you cannot get to heaven?
-
The 'inner conviction' comes from the Holy Spirit who opens our eyes to truth.
I certainly don't believe everyone who claims to be Christian has the gift of the Holy Spirit, throughout history there are records of those who speak and behave in ways that indicate they have lost touch with God, and so it continues.
-
I came across this site quite by accident when looking up something else; thought I'd post it here as it is very relevant to this thread. It gave me the creeps just a bit but does illustrate what Steve was talking about in the op.
http://www.cfoic.com/biblical-israel-or-west-bank/?gclid=CJLIwsum1M4CFckp0wodZH0AOA
From the section:' "Reasons why a Christian should support Israel" :
REASON #3–
BECAUSE GOD’S GIFT AND CALL ON ISRAEL HAVE NOT BEEN REVOKED. Romans 11:28 “but as regards the election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable.” The covenant with Abraham has not been replaced by the New Covenant. The eternal covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants has NOT been set aside.
That contradicts much of what we have been saying in posts above.
---
Further to all that I spent some time a while ago trying to explain to a couple of people that the attitude of Israelis is not generally favourable towards Christian Zionists. To no avail of course.
On that topic I thought the article below was pretty good:
http://www.jewishpost.com/archives/news/Israels-Most-Hated-Friend.html
-
The 'inner conviction' comes from the Holy Spirit who opens our eyes to truth.
I certainly don't believe everyone who claims to be Christian has the gift of the Holy Spirit, throughout history there are records of those who speak and behave in ways that indicate they have lost touch with God, and so it continues.
But they'll just say you have lost the 'inner conviction' and lost touch with God
-
Oh very likely, water off a duck's back.
-
The Gospels tell us that God instituted a new covenant. Christ shows us that the Jews didn't understand God's covenant with Abraham at all. They are slaves to law and will be condemned bybthe law unless they convert to Christ. Circumcision of the flesh is not necessary to be a descendent of Abraham. Faith in Jesus Christ and a circumcised heart through baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity is what makes us descendents of Abraham.
So God got it wrong with the everlasting bit then? God had a change of heart?
-
I came across this site quite by accident when looking up something else; thought I'd post it here as it is very relevant to this thread. It gave me the creeps just a bit but does illustrate what Steve was talking about in the op.
http://www.cfoic.com/biblical-israel-or-west-bank/?gclid=CJLIwsum1M4CFckp0wodZH0AOA
From the section:' "Reasons why a Christian should support Israel" :
REASON #3–
BECAUSE GOD’S GIFT AND CALL ON ISRAEL HAVE NOT BEEN REVOKED. Romans 11:28 “but as regards the election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and call of God are irrevocable.” The covenant with Abraham has not been replaced by the New Covenant. The eternal covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants has NOT been set aside.
That contradicts much of what we have been saying in posts above.
---
Hi Brownie,
The covenant God made with Abraham was conditional upon him walking before God and being blameless (Genesis 17:2). Circumcision was an outward sign of this. If Israel did not keep the covenant, God was not obliged to keep it. Hence the oppression of Israel by the Philistines, the Exile, etc.
After the Exile, Israel was restored to the land in fulfillment of prophecy. But when the Messiah came they rejected him, and also persecuted the church. I'm not aware of any prophecy of them being re-gathered to Palestine after having done that. In Romans 11 Paul speaks about the conversion of the Jews. J.B.Jordan thinks this took place in the years preceding AD 70. It's not future to us.
-
I could laugh, Spud, but it isn't really funny; we all know there are many different strands to Christianity and that beliefs vary but nothing demonstrates that more than this thread don't you agree?
If it wasn't for what I perceive to be the dangers of Christian Zionism I honestly wouldn't care, but be quite content rarely thinking, never mind worrying, about any of it.
......
Ippy, I was wondering about the significance of you asking floo if her husband goes out wearing a white scarf and can't work out whether you are referring to the practice of Cyrano or the Dali Lama, Most likely it is something else entirely, maybe naughty. Too deep, do explain please.
-
God had a change of heart?
Yes, the first one was accidentally damaged beyond repair while it was being circumcised.
-
;D how did I know that was coming?
-
Floo does your husband ever go out wearing a white scarf?
ippy
Ehhhhhhhhhhh?
-
So God got it wrong with the everlasting bit then? God had a change of heart?
No. The covenant God made with Abraham is still everlasting only it has been renewed through Christ. Circumcision of the flesh always counted for nought unless that same person also had a contrite heart. Abraham was counted righteous by God even before he was circumcised. Circumcision of the flesh therefore is not necessary.
-
No. The covenant God made with Abraham is still everlasting only it has been renewed through Christ. Circumcision of the flesh always counted for nought unless that same person also had a contrite heart. Abraham was counted righteous by God even before he was circumcised. Circumcision of the flesh therefore is not necessary.
Abraham, an abusive parent, who was willing to sacrifice his son, was definitely created in the image of god!
-
Abraham, an abusive parent, who was willing to sacrifice his son, was definitely created in the image of god!
The sacrifice of Isaac is indeed a figure of Christ's sacrifice.
-
The sacrifice of Isaac is indeed a figure of Christ's sacrifice.
DISGUSTING. Abraham was a crap father if that story was true, as is god!
-
DISGUSTING. Abraham was a crap father if that story was true, as is god!
Yes yes! We all know what you think.
-
Floo, Paul says that the story of Abraham is allegorical, or that it may be interpreted as such (which is in line with mainstream Christian thinking).
See Galatians 4:21-31, I can't copy the entire text and post it, despite trying a few times, but here is the bit where he specifically says that:
24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically (ESV)
-
Floo, Paul says that the story of Abraham is allegorical, or that it may be interpreted as such (which is in line with mainstream Christian thinking).
See Galatians 4:21-31, I can't copy the entire text and post it, despite trying a few times, but here is the bit where he specifically says that:
24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically (ESV)
Allegorical or not, the tale is still unpleasant!
-
Well you don't have to read it any more, floo, you are free. I clearly remember saying and writing my own objections years ago when I was doing RE and having it explained to me. A lot of allegorical stories, across the board, are somewhat unpalatable.
I wonder if Jewish Orthodox view Abraham's story as allegorical? (I expect some do, some don't, some are undecided.)
-
An allegorical understanding doesn't necessarily deny the literal. In otherwords, one can believe that Abraham really did take Isaac to be sacrificed and that the angel saved Isaac at the last minute but also believe that it is an allegory of something else, namely Christ's sacrifice which was to come. That would be the traditional understanding and mine also.
-
An algorical understanding doesn't necesarilly deny the literal necessarilly. In otherwords, one can believe that Abraham really did take Isaac to be sacraficed and that the angel saved Isaac at the last minute but also believe that it also is an allegory of something else, namely Christ's sacrifice. That would be the traditional understanding and mine also.
It never ceases to amaze me how determined you religious people are to believe in this preposterous nonsense, I thought those divers in the Olympics were good at twisting and turning.
ippy
-
Supposing the story of Jesus dying to save others had any validity, his 'sacrifice' wasn't nearly as great as those, who have died saving people. Jesus is supposed to have popped up alive three days later, whereas everyone else stayed dead!
-
Floo, you may feel like that now but you must have been told the meanings of Biblical stories when you were a youngster, being as you had church going parents and went to church yourself, albeit forced. It is possible to reject it all later on but still understand what is behind the faith of believers.
-
DISGUSTING. Abraham was a crap father if that story was true, as is god!
Where's social services when you need them?
-
Well you don't have to read it any more, floo, you are free. I clearly remember saying and writing my own objections years ago when I was doing RE and having it explained to me. A lot of allegorical stories, across the board, are somewhat unpalatable.
I wonder if Jewish Orthodox view Abraham's story as allegorical? (I expect some do, some don't, some are undecided.)
They can't do because they circumcise their children, and so believe what it says.
-
I was reading about circumcision (yeah I have all the fun), prompted by this thread, and there is a lot of info about the procedure, performed on adults as well as children, including comments from those who have had it for various reasons. Not one negative I have to say which surprised me. I wasn't looking at the religious aspects because we've been doing that here.
Anyway, the general consensus seemed to be that people in hot countries where water is in short supply routinely had and have their boys circumcised for hygiene reasons. Must admit I thought that because I know it is commonly done in Africa and most of (not all) the Indian subcontinent, and the middle east.
Well, the Jewish people started off in a hot country so it figures. It has become embedded in Jewish culture so all boys are circumcised regardless of where they live or whether their parents are religious.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how determined you religious people are to believe in this preposterous nonsense, I thought those divers in the Olympics were good at twisting and turning.
ippy
..... and it never ceases to amaze me how you guys (the t'other side) will bend over backwards to keep folk away from knowledge of the Creator.
-
Brownie (up thread).... it is a shame there are no Jewish posters here. I don't think there ever have been on this forum.
-
When the forum first started there were some who had previously posted on the Jewish Topic at the BBC. They thought it would be the same as the Beeb but every thread in the Jewish Topic on here was started by a Christian and was very pro-Christian, rather confrontational towards the Jews who hardly had a look in so they faded away. They must have been very disappointed. I joined thinking it was a replica of the BBC R&E forum, so it was up to a point but definitely not on the Jewish topic, probably not on the Muslim and Eastern either. Thinking about it, the Muslim topic on here now is not particularly respectful to Islam and Gabriella is the only Muslim who posts. (One could say much the same about the Christian bit I suppose but there are more of us.)
On the Beeb, Christians were not allowed to proselytise on the Jewish Topic though they were welcome to ask polite questions. There were some really good posters who could teach us all quite a bit. Anyway I faded away from here too until last year. Very glad to be back but, as you say, we could do with some Jewish posters.
-
..... and it never ceases to amaze me how you guys (the t'other side) will bend over backwards to keep folk away from knowledge of the Creator.
thank you so kindly for stating that I am lying.
-
Where's social services when you need them?
They certainly would have had their work cut out for them in Biblical times!
-
..... and it never ceases to amaze me how you guys (the t'other side) will bend over backwards to keep folk away from knowledge of the Creator.
Sweet pea, that's the trouble, when asked you're all unable to back up these rather strange beliefs with anything that might support them.
If you want to make stories up about leprechauns unicorns or creators, on my part, feel free to fill your boots, just don't expect us to step back and let you get away with it if you start teaching this religious nonsense to our children as though you're teaching them facts.
ippy
-
Sweet pea, that's the trouble, when asked you're all unable to back up these rather strange beliefs with anything that might support them.
If you want to make stories up about leprechauns unicorns or creators, on my part, feel free to fill your boots, just don't expect us to step back and let you get away with it if you start teaching this religious nonsense to our children as though you're teaching them facts.
ippy
All children should be taught to investigate for themselves. Not as I suspect you want, indoctrinated into being antitheists.
-
Your use of the generic "you" ippy is somewhat disconcerting because I don't teach anything like that to kids and we have had no evidence so far that Sweet Pea does. Undoubtedly some people do but they are few and far between in this country. I've just seen Vlad's comment and agree with him that, when it comes to beliefs, children must be able to work things out for themselves.
So, if we leave the teaching aside, we are OK to believe in leprechauns, unicorns or anything else. You are equally free not to believe.
Now we're all happy, what shall we talk about :-) ?
(Still waiting to hear what you meant by the "white scarf" comment to floo, my mind has been working overtime trying to work it out.)
-
All children should be taught to investigate for themselves. Not as I suspect you want, indoctrinated into being antitheists.
Our children were encouraged to make up their own minds about religion. Our three girls are Christians, but moderate in their beliefs.
-
No. The covenant God made with Abraham is still everlasting only it has been renewed through Christ.
More word salad. If it was everlasting, it wouldn't need renewing by definition.
Circumcision of the flesh always counted for nought unless that same person also had a contrite heart. Abraham was counted righteous by God even before he was circumcised. Circumcision of the flesh therefore is not necessary.
I always thought this circumcision thing was a bit bizarre. God asks Jews to mutilate themselves as a sign but they are not allowed to display the sign in public.
-
Our children were encouraged to make up their own minds about religion. Our three girls are Christians, but moderate in their beliefs.
Really? That must grind your axe, considering the bile that emanates from your posts to Christians/believers and the like!!!
Actually thinking about it that explains your bile. You can't give it your kids so you vent your spleen here instead.
-
Floo isn't alone there Jack and she does talk about other things, sometimes quite humourously.
It's not a good idea to turn discussions round to our families though, that's my only criticism.
-
All children should be taught to investigate for themselves. Not as I suspect you want, indoctrinated into being antitheists.
How many times do I need to say young children should be taught to think for themselves before they are taught any kind of dogma, as though whatever the dogma, is the truth.
What is difficult about the above to understand? I've never wanted anything other than the above.
You obviously like your quota of fariy stories, well that's all fine and dandy Vlad, but for the umteenth time again, don't teach your fairy, magical, mystical and superstition based stories to our young children as though they are true stories.
ippy
-
Does he though?
-
Your use of the generic "you" ippy is somewhat disconcerting because I don't teach anything like that to kids and we have had no evidence so far that Sweet Pea does. Undoubtedly some people do but they are few and far between in this country. I've just seen Vlad's comment and agree with him that, when it comes to beliefs, children must be able to work things out for themselves.
So, if we leave the teaching aside, we are OK to believe in leprechauns, unicorns or anything else. You are equally free not to believe.
Now we're all happy, what shall we talk about :-) ?
(Still waiting to hear what you meant by the "white scarf" comment to floo, my mind has been working overtime trying to work it out.)
You can speak for yourself Brownie, I'll be a lot happier when the religious lose their privilleged access to our very young children here in the U K, if it's not such a big issue why are the C of E clinging onto this particular privilege, one of many, like grimm death?
Do you really think religious organisations have/had no idea that children don't usually acquire the ability to challenge untill around the age of seven years, the majority of C of E faith schools here in the U K are for children of this young age group, I wonder why?
I'm sure we will rout religion from our schools eventually, we'll keep chipping away; it is a fact that religion forms an enormous part of our history and it would be wrong to try to bury it.
ippy
-
Does he though?
Brownie, he has a history of not wanting to understand secularism, I'm only reminding him, so the general secularist wish to rout religion from schools doen't mean we would want to surplant religion with any other agenda, other than teaching this vunerable group of young children how to think for themselves.
If wanting to teaching children to think for themselves amounts to indoctrination, I'll put my hands up and plead guilty to that one.
ippy
-
Brownie, he has a history of not wanting to understand secularism, I'm only reminding him, so the general secularist wish to rout religion from schools doen't mean we would want to surplant religion with any other agenda, other than teaching this vunerable group of young children how to think for themselves.
If wanting to teaching children to think for themselves amounts to indoctrination, I'll put my hands up and plead guilty to that one.
ippy
Secular Humanists are at perfect liberty to start schools or to form academy trusts. That many schools are church foundation says something about which bodies had most social concern in the past. That Secular Humanists are not founding schools but hoping for a free take over ostensibly to satisfy their beliefs now says something about their social concern today.
In any case. We live in a secular country. IF you are frustrated by progress in the Rout of religion have you considered that the person in the street considers your brand of secularism humanism unacceptable and somewhat swivel eyed.
-
How many times do I need to say young children should be taught to think for themselves before they are taught any kind of dogma, as though whatever the dogma, is the truth.
What is difficult about the above to understand? I've never wanted anything other than the above.
You obviously like your quota of fariy stories, well that's all fine and dandy Vlad, but for the umteenth time again, don't teach your fairy, magical, mystical and superstition based stories to our young children as though they are true stories.
ippy
Each parent has the right to to bring their children up to believe in God. If you say nay then you're a fascist.
-
Each parent has the right to to bring their children up to believe in God. If you say nay then you're a fascist.
If Stalin was a fascist then I agree with you.
-
Each parent has the right to to bring their children up to believe in God. If you say nay then you're a fascist.
So you'd stand by the rights of muslims and hindus to bring up their children to believe in their respective gods even though you believe they are the wrong gods.
-
So you'd stand by the rights of muslims and hindus to bring up their children to believe in their respective gods even though you believe they are the wrong gods.
Indeed.
-
People who force children to follow their own take on religion or agnosticism are very wrong. We cannot prove there is/isn't a god of some sort, therefore it is up to each individual to make up their own minds on the topic, just as we allowed our own kids to do. My husband and I might not see things the way they do, but we are extremely proud of them as they are thoroughly decent people. :)
-
Each parent has the right to to bring their children up to believe in God. If you say nay then you're a fascist.
No it's not fascism to rule out specific lesson space about religion to the more vulnerable pre seven year old young children in our schools, it wouldn't be right to keep presenting say unionism either, plus giving lessons about any one subject would tend in its self to lend gravitas to any subject presented in this manner, religion in this case.
I would be on your side if the population in general were being oppressed and prevented from practising their religion outside of school hours, now that could be seen as fascism and I would have no part of it.
Children below the age of seven, on average, are at a particularly vulnerable age and I wouldn't want to see or hear about them having any isms or religions getting very much more than an occasional mention to this particular group.
ippy
-
Secular Humanists are at perfect liberty to start schools or to form academy trusts. That many schools are church foundation says something about which bodies had most social concern in the past. That Secular Humanists are not founding schools but hoping for a free take over ostensibly to satisfy their beliefs now says something about their social concern today.
In any case. We live in a secular country. IF you are frustrated by progress in the Rout of religion have you considered that the person in the street considers your brand of secularism humanism unacceptable and somewhat swivel eyed.
I see you're doing misquotes now where you have said I want to rout religion, implying a complete rout from everywhere; where did I express that view?
You wrote: "In any case. We live in a secular country. IF you are frustrated by progress in the Rout of religion have you considered that the person in the street considers your brand of secularism humanism unacceptable and somewhat swivel eyed".
I specifically referred to routing religion from schools and even then I was referring to the Pre seven year old children, the particularly vulnerable ones that are specifically targeted by the majority of religions or faiths, whichever description you may prefer.
Haven't you noticed Vlad, how the various religions do their very best to indoctrinate their followers in to making a point of indoctrinating the next lot, the next generation; thank goodness these methods only work on a percentage basis and now with so much knowledge at our fingertips, even these percentage games the religions play trying to indoctrinate new recruits are loosing their grip, even that ploy is no longer as successful as it used to be.
ippy
-
No it's not fascism to rule out specific lesson space about religion to the more vulnerable pre seven year old young children in our schools, it wouldn't be right to keep presenting say unionism either, plus giving lessons about any one subject would tend in its self to lend gravitas to any subject presented in this manner, religion in this case.
I would be on your side if the population in general were being oppressed and prevented from practising their religion outside of school hours, now that could be seen as fascism and I would have no part of it.
Children below the age of seven, on average, are at a particularly vulnerable age and I wouldn't want to see or hear about them having any isms or religions getting very much more than an occasional mention to this particular group.
ippy
You never mentioned anything about schools. Anyway, if a parent wishes to send their children to a religious school it's nobody elses business but theirs.
-
You never mentioned anything about schools. Anyway, if a parent wishes to send their children to a religious school it's nobody elses business but theirs.
Catholic schools don't exactly have the best of reputations. Sexual abuse has been rife in the past.
-
Catholic schools don't exactly have the best of reputations. Sexual abuse has been rife in the past.
Can you cite something that says sexual abuse in Catholic schools was worse than other schools?
-
Catholic schools don't exactly have the best of reputations. Sexual abuse has been rife in the past.
You're confusing Catholic schools and Catholic priests.
-
You're confusing Catholic schools and Catholic priests.
No I am not, there has been a lot of abuse reported at Catholic schools too, especially the Irish ones!
-
We are, I think, talking about Catholic Primary and Comprehensive schools in this country, floo.
-
No I am not, there has been a lot of abuse reported at Catholic schools too, especially the Irish ones!
and gave you compared them to other schools? What is your evidence that is specifically worse?
-
You never mentioned anything about schools. Anyway, if a parent wishes to send their children to a religious school it's nobody elses business but theirs.
Ad O, it's hardly my fault you haven't been following this part of this thread and didn't realise I was referring to the youngest children in our schools.
You have every right to bring up your children how you see fit, like you I wouldn't see it otherwise, but all I would be doing is to level the playing field by, for starters removing the undeserved place religious followers have imposed on our schools funded by government money and by default making a precedent that it's so perfectly acceptable to have specific lessons about religions is perfectly normal; just so perfectly normal for religions to have a privileged place in our curriculum.
Well the above has been the norm for too many decades now it's time religion was put into its place as no more a special lesson than any other, so levelling the playing field would necessarily put religion into its long overdue place the private sector.
In effect if you wish to bring up your children into one or the other of these faiths, fine, do it in your own time and don't inflict it on others within our school system, in effect a publicly funded recruiting system.
It's not the religion I'm so much against it's the unwarranted religious privileges, I look forward to seeing the end of all of these religious privileges, It would be a bonus too if religious belief were to descend into the lower leagues where they belong, but there if it pleases people to follow these ancient beliefs well good luck to them.
Funny we don't hear much about Zeus these days? I wonder why?
ippy
-
No it's not fascism to rule out specific lesson space about religion to the more vulnerable pre seven year old young children in our schools, it wouldn't be right to keep presenting say unionism either, plus giving lessons about any one subject would tend in its self to lend gravitas to any subject presented in this manner, religion in this case.
I would be on your side if the population in general were being oppressed and prevented from practising their religion outside of school hours, now that could be seen as fascism and I would have no part of it.
Children below the age of seven, on average, are at a particularly vulnerable age and I wouldn't want to see or hear about them having any isms or religions getting very much more than an occasional mention to this particular group.
ippy
Sounds very sensible to me. Don't know what the theists are whinging on about.
-
Christian Zionists and antisemitism
« on: 15 August 2016, 22:21:53 »
Christian Zionists - i.e. the staunch defenders of Israel, mostly from the charismatic, fundamentalist and dispensationalist camps - are tiresomely fond of accusing of antisemitism those of us who think that invading someone else's land and chucking them out is not cricket, and if the critics are Jewish themselves, not to be deprived of their favourite knee-jerk response, they accuse them of being self-hating Jews. I think it's about time to turn the tables on them. It is possible to be a Christian Zionist and an antisemite, as appears to have been the case with the recently clog-popped Tim LaHaye, who was a defender of Israel against all comers, but who also once said that it was a pity that so many brilliant Jewish minds had cleaved to ideologies which were harmful to humanity, which is an antisemitic statement if ever there was one: it's true, of course, but no more so than it is of brilliant minds in general, so why did he specify Jewish ones?
As a matter of fact, belief in Israel as the eternally-promised homeland of the Jews, and that the return of the Jews to Israel is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ, dovetails neatly with one particular manifestation of antisemitism: that which says that, since the Jews now have Israel, they should all be there, and not here. There is a hint of this in those nutty Christian groups which try to persuade Jewish people to emigrate to Israel, and provide help in doing so. It is certainly true that the existence of Israel can encourage antisemitism: there used to be a Jewish community in Iraq - it was small, but very ancient, probably dating all the way back to the first-century diaspora. It doesn't exist any more, because Saddam Hussein chucked them all out, specifically arguing that they could go an live in Israel, so they had no grounds for complaint. That, presumably, is precisely what they did, but the point is that you shouldn't treat people as political pawns like that.
Where the fuck are you twats taking this??
-
.. I'm guessing down the Corbyn train gate route.. because that is the level of intelligence.. intekignce3, intellighgance. What I've been told...
-
Sounds very sensible to me. Don't know what the theists are whinging on about.
I can answer that J K, theists find it almost impossible to give up their privileges, they've got so used to having all sorts of privileges, they can no longer see them a such, so when anyone even sugests removing any one of them, they're inclined to think they are being persecuted and that's why the whinging.
Theists don't want a level playing field, probably because of the lack of evidence that could support their ideas, if there were any, so they need anything that they can grab hold of that might further their cause.
ippy
-
I can answer that J K, theists find it almost impossible to give up their privileges, they've got so used to having all sorts of privileges, they can no longer see them a such, so when anyone even sugests removing any one of them, they're inclined to think they are being persecuted and that's why the whinging.
Theists don't want a level playing field, probably because of the lack of evidence that could support their ideas, if there were any, so they need anything that they can grab hold of that might further their cause.
ippy
You would have thought that they would have had faith in their mighty God to provide for all their needs and make their religion strong and victorious...? Guess not.
-
You would have thought that they would have had faith in their mighty God to provide for all their needs and make their religion strong and victorious...? Guess not.
Ditto, something like that.
ippy
-
Christian Zionists - i.e. the staunch defenders of Israel, mostly from the charismatic, fundamentalist and dispensationalist camps - are tiresomely fond of accusing of antisemitism those of us who think that invading someone else's land and chucking them out is not cricket, and if the critics are Jewish themselves, not to be deprived of their favourite knee-jerk response, they accuse them of being self-hating Jews. I think it's about time to turn the tables on them. It is possible to be a Christian Zionist and an antisemite, as appears to have been the case with the recently clog-popped Tim LaHaye, who was a defender of Israel against all comers, but who also once said that it was a pity that so many brilliant Jewish minds had cleaved to ideologies which were harmful to humanity, which is an antisemitic statement if ever there was one: it's true, of course, but no more so than it is of brilliant minds in general, so why did he specify Jewish ones?
As a matter of fact, belief in Israel as the eternally-promised homeland of the Jews, and that the return of the Jews to Israel is a necessary precursor to the return of Christ, dovetails neatly with one particular manifestation of antisemitism: that which says that, since the Jews now have Israel, they should all be there, and not here. There is a hint of this in those nutty Christian groups which try to persuade Jewish people to emigrate to Israel, and provide help in doing so. It is certainly true that the existence of Israel can encourage antisemitism: there used to be a Jewish community in Iraq - it was small, but very ancient, probably dating all the way back to the first-century diaspora. It doesn't exist any more, because Saddam Hussein chucked them all out, specifically arguing that they could go an live in Israel, so they had no grounds for complaint. That, presumably, is precisely what they did, but the point is that you shouldn't treat people as political pawns like that.
Should there be anyone{and I doubt it} on here who believes this dispensation-ism Tim La Haye nonsense.I can say it is not going to happen it is pure nonsense,and can be dis proved with about 3 scriptures.So what we have here is a thread going nowhere.
~TW~
-
Should there be anyone{and I doubt it} on here who believes this dispensation-ism Tim La Haye nonsense.I can say it is not going to happen it is pure nonsense,and can be dis proved with about 3 scriptures.So what we have here is a thread going nowhere.
~TW~
Your contribution adds that element of assuredness to the whole thread ~TW~, where are you most other times, when we need you?
ippy
-
Spot-on, Jack.... for an atheist you have amazing insight.
Christ condemned the Jews because the Pharisees and Sadducees that he was addressing were followers of the Talmud and not the Torah.
I do not believe Christ condemned anyone....John 3:17 tells us Jesus didn't come to condemn but to save. It wasn't about being followers of the Talmud or the Torah.
The religious beliefs held by Pharisee and Sadducee differed and the written and Oral law could also be seen as being divisive. But the Messiah was to bring the final truth.
Such as resurrection, angels and so unite all in the one final covenant.
Christians become Jews those whose hearts are circumcised to the truth. So one covenant for Jew and Gentile. It is only natural that believers would have a love for Jerusalem and the whole of Israel and the people who are Gods people. Sad that so much discourse exists.
Christ also pointed out that the Pharisees knew the truth but did not enter into it themselves and prevented others from doing so. I think that was the bigger beef that Christ had with the Pharisees and the Sadducee. The righteousness of believers had to surpass theirs.
Jesus Christ is that righteousness.