time to pry his rifle

[Ron Mexico]

Explaining further to you may be as casting a pearl necklace upon a swine.

 

Now that's kinky.

[Dechristo]

? dechristo.

 

 

Timid preachers sully their own souls when they change what the writers of the Bible believed to be facts to allegories, parables, poems and myths.

 

The experience of those, such as I, that "are free indeed" is due precisely to "allegories, parables, poems and myths", not bullshit worldly legalism that Paul addressed in Romans and subsequently described as "milk" for babes of worldly understanding; what he described as "meat" is chastised here by Ingersoll.

 

No doubt, Ingersoll is one that finds comfort in chanting trance-like, "Jesus...Jesus...Jesus..." unendingly, while seeming oblivious to the fact that Jesus is recorded as having taught almost exclusively in allegory and parable and is recorded as stating his mission was (through his allegorical teachings) "to set the captives free".

 

You are free in the way that dogshit is also free.

 

Just look at yourself! You were set-up perfectly to deliver a backhand smash of "AND WHO IS DELUDED" but, you blew it.

 

tsk, tsk, tsk

[Dechristo]

Explaining further to you may be as casting a pearl necklace upon a swine.

 

Now that's kinky.

 

I'm free indeed.

[Dechristo]

...but, not always free in deed.

[StevenSeagal]

If you are describing his argument correctly, Richard Dawkins clearly does not understand a key aspect of Christianity: Christians are not bound by the old testament law. Christians really only have one law: love thy neighbour. If Dawkins doesn't understand this, it brings the whole bookinto question.

 

Okay, here is a direct quote from Dawkins:

 

...Thou shalt not kill was never intended to mean what we now think it means. It meant very specifically, thou shalt not kill Jews. And all those commandments that make reference to "thy neighbour" are equally exclusive. "Neighbour" means fellow Jew. Moses Maimonides, the highly respected twelfth century Rabbi and physician, expounds the full meaning of "thou shalt not kill" as follows: "If one slays a single Israelite , he transgresses a negative commandment, for Scripture says Thou shalt not murder. If one murders wilfully in the presence of witnesses, he is put to death by the sword. Needless to say, one is not put to death if he kills a heathen".

[bstach]

 

Richard Dawkins, in his book "The God Delusion", makes a very strong argument that, while Stalin for example was likely an atheist, atheism itself was not the motivation for the atrocities committed, nor for his lack of morals.

 

Simultaneously, he makes an even stronger argument that even devout Christians do not actually obtain their morals from the Bible: since the old testament explicitly calls for such things as killing someone who works on sundays, death for adultery, on and on- things that modern Christians have come to reject- clearly if humans can pick and choose which parts of the Bible to adhere to, there must be some other basis for morality acting in advance.

 

If you are describing his argument correctly, Richard Dawkins clearly does not understand a key aspect of Christianity: Christians are not bound by the old testament law. Christians really only have one law: love thy neighbour. If Dawkins doesn't understand this, it brings the whole bookinto question.

 

Dawkins anticipates that very question and goes on to decipher the New Testament in similar manner, again making the point that today's interpretation of even the New Testament is selective, and rarely literal. The question is if, as most religious people advocate, morality is supposedly absent without religion, on what basis do we choose the bits of morality that suit us out of the Bible (or the Koran, as well)?

 

As for "Love thy neighbor": he also makes a point that the historical context of this command was specifically for the jewish people: to love one another- "love another jew". i.e.Tribalism. He claims the command, at the time it was written, did not apply to also love non believers, although in modern times that has come to be the accepted interpretation of it.

 

The story of the good Samaritan suggests otherwise. Same with meeting the Samaritan woman at the well. Both of these stories were scandalous to the Jews (for the reason Dawkins mentions). They clearly demonstrate that Jesus was intentionlly *inclusive* of non-Jews (which really pissed off the Jewish religious leaders, btw). How does Dawkins explain that away?

 

Regardless, why does anyone find it surprising that different people interpret the Bible different ways? Everybody frames what they read within the context of their personal experience. To complicate things, some parts of the Bible are clearly literal, others clearly figurative but there is some grey area. Add to this deceitful men who choose to intepret the Bible in a manner that suits there sinful hearts and men who seize the opportunity to use 'religion' as a tool for money and power...and you get the situation we have today.

 

Jesus taught that true religion is bringing justice to the powerless, feeding the hungry and so on.

[bstach]

If you are describing his argument correctly, Richard Dawkins clearly does not understand a key aspect of Christianity: Christians are not bound by the old testament law. Christians really only have one law: love thy neighbour. If Dawkins doesn't understand this, it brings the whole bookinto question.

 

Okay, here is a direct quote from Dawkins:

 

...Thou shalt not kill was never intended to mean what we now think it means. It meant very specifically, thou shalt not kill Jews. And all those commandments that make reference to "thy neighbour" are equally exclusive. "Neighbour" means fellow Jew. Moses Maimonides, the highly respected twelfth century Rabbi and physician, expounds the full meaning of "thou shalt not kill" as follows: "If one slays a single Israelite , he transgresses a negative commandment, for Scripture says Thou shalt not murder. If one murders wilfully in the presence of witnesses, he is put to death by the sword. Needless to say, one is not put to death if he kills a heathen".

 

This is an Old Testament reference. Did I not previously point out Christians are not bound by Old Testament law?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

If you are describing his argument correctly, Richard Dawkins clearly does not understand a key aspect of Christianity: Christians are not bound by the old testament law. Christians really only have one law: love thy neighbour. If Dawkins doesn't understand this, it brings the whole bookinto question.

 

Okay, here is a direct quote from Dawkins:

 

...Thou shalt not kill was never intended to mean what we now think it means. It meant very specifically, thou shalt not kill Jews. And all those commandments that make reference to "thy neighbour" are equally exclusive. "Neighbour" means fellow Jew. Moses Maimonides, the highly respected twelfth century Rabbi and physician, expounds the full meaning of "thou shalt not kill" as follows: "If one slays a single Israelite , he transgresses a negative commandment, for Scripture says Thou shalt not murder. If one murders wilfully in the presence of witnesses, he is put to death by the sword. Needless to say, one is not put to death if he kills a heathen".

 

This is an Old Testament reference. Did I not previously point out Christians are not bound by Old Testament law?

 

He's found someone whose twisted world-view he can parrot. The poor sap.

 

[StevenSeagal]

Regardless, why does anyone find it surprising that different people interpret the Bible different ways? Everybody frames what they read within the context of their personal experience.

 

The context of Dawkins' arguments I point out above was not to refute the Bible point by point, but to refute the assertions of the religious that morality has its roots strictly in scripture and that atheists "have no morals". And again, your second sentence merely reinforces his point that everyone interprets the Bible differently according to an evolving sense of morality preestablished- from...where? Culture?

 

I'm not a Bible scholar and at the same time I can't align with his views 100% but I think he makes clear and cogent points. If you wish to take issue with his views and/or are prepared to have your views challenged, then I suggest reading his book, because it is interesting regardless of your inclinations.

 

Dawkins sums up his chapter on the roots of morality thus:

"...I and many others hold the belief that we do not need God to be good- or evil".

 

Jesus taught that true religion is bringing justice to the powerless, feeding the hungry and so on.

 

In all my life I have never understood why it need be any more complicated than that.

[StevenSeagal]

He's found someone whose twisted world-view he can parrot. The poor sap.

 

This, coming from a guy who makes blanket statements equating Stalin and Mao's moral framework as 'typical' of atheists, and alludes that these are examples of the end result of having no organized religion guiding one's life.

 

 

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

 

This is an Old Testament reference. Did I not previously point out Christians are not bound by Old Testament law?

 

Are Christians allowed to pick which laws of the Old Testament to ignore? If so, under what moral framework should they use to decide? On what basis are they "not bound" by the old law? Why do some Christians still read the Old Testament?

 

Serious question.

[Raindawg]

Need a keynote speaker at your next bar mitzvah?

The keynote speaker at a bar mitvah is the bar mitvah boy. You're not needed.

 

How about a mohel at your next bris?

A mohel is required at every bris. I assume that you're unqualified.

 

Your smart-ass comments really do step over the line.

Your idea of the modern Jew is probably something akin to Woody Allen's usual movie persona: a mincing nebish who won't/can't stand up for himself.

"Don't hurt me...I'll just go away..."

 

He's not representative. You are free in this country to ridicule the religion of your choice, but don't expect everyone to sit on their hands and not counter you on it.

You are both profoundly ignorant. You can thank G_d that you live in such a place where you can behave the way you do and not get your butts run out of town!

 

[Dechristo]

Your idea of the modern Jew is probably something akin to Woody Allen's usual movie persona: a mincing nebish who won't/can't stand up for himself.

 

My idea of the modern Jew is more consistent with that portrayed by Meital Dohan in a cable show running currently: Hot, Ex-Israeli military, bad-ass.

[Moses!]

only if it's cut.

[Dechristo]

 

Are Christians allowed to pick which laws of the Old Testament to ignore? If so, under what moral framework should they use to decide? On what basis are they "not bound" by the old law?

 

As is related in the New Testament, a similar question (your first) was put to Christ as, "have you come to abolish The Law?" His reply was that he had come, not to abolish, but to "fulfill The Law". I referenced this in an earlier post where Paul tries to explain this concept in the book of Romans. My understanding (presently, somewhat blurred by a goodly portion of superb chilled Hornitos Anejo) is bound in the concept of "abiding in Christ" - a term and concept, I believe, universally fucked-up, OK, misunderstood in its explanation by modern Christian apologists. For me, this is of the most salient notions woven through the great religions of this world.

 

To "abide in Christ" requires one to assimilate, own, and position oneself mentally, in the understanding of the irrational teachings of Christ: "worry not about tomorrow (the next moment)", which allows for "judge not lest ye be judged", which allows for "Love (trust) the Lord your God ( a concept that requires its own treatment)with all your heart, soul, and strength", which ultimately allows for the most difficult of human actions: forgiveness.

 

In short, when one "abides in Christ", The Law, its correlative judgments and consequences, are no longer taking up mindspace - acceptance (Love, Devotion, and Surrender) and "doing the next thing" are the train of thought. When you're flowing while climbing, skiing, fucking, running, fighting, kayaking, working, watching, etc., or, in other words experiencing "time flying", you're "abiding in Christ". Of course, in other religions, this is construed as "being in the moment", "being here now", etc. It is the habit of perpetual meditation or, "praying without ceasing". It is at odds with our rational mind, which provides balance of necessity, but constantly fights to hold total sway. It is at the root of the Taoist saying, "invest in loss".

 

I think of it as the appropriate application of judgment. Ie, when cabinetmaking, I can appropriately judge when I set out to determine a measurement. I inappropriately judge (lose the flow, lose the momentum and focus) when I waste time beating myself (or another) for a "wrong" measurement.

 

 

 

Why do some Christians still read the Old Testament? Serious question.

 

History of the spiritual genealogy of the "faith", for one reason. Also, as a consequence of chronology, all of Christ's scriptural references are there. But, of the greatest importance, in my understanding, is that the foundation of the understanding of this religion is in the paring together of the two "testaments"; primarily, the New Testament (the words "in red") with the first book of it all, Genesis (specifically, the third chapter).

 

ALL OF THIS, OUR NOTION OF GUILT AND CONSCIENCE, WHAT WE'VE CODIFIED AND LEGISLATED INTO LAW, WHAT FRAMES OUR INDIVIDUAL AND/OR COMMON NOTIONS OF "RIGHT AND WRONG", THE WORD (OR USE OF THE WORD) WE HATE, IS

 

"sin". Such a diminutive, three-lettered, low-Scrabble-score, throw-away, archaic, culturally anachronistic, word. Fuck it. Who needs the bullshit? And, yet, it's there. It's always there. Wrongly (I believe), we associate it with "wrong". And, since we all know "wrong" is subjective, we relegate the term to esoterica of puritanical culture. But, it remains, potent; for a mysterious reason.

 

Genesis says "sin" entered Man when he ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. The source of every last human's malleable idea of Good and Evil. The bottom line of why we all can't "just get along". The lie at the time, was so that one could be "like God". The mistaken, fallacy-rich, idea that one's own framework of "Right and Wrong" is supreme. The "Fall from Grace".

 

The Return to Grace: instead of abiding in the Genesis-described Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, mimicking and perpetually continuing the mistake of the first Adam (and Eve, we're all in this together, my lovelies), the "Christian" abides in Christ (w/o judgment), and the Tree of Life, in which "The Law" and "sin" are forever absent.

 

 

Well, I've finished the bottle of primo tequila, and so, I really don't care what heat I take for expounding (perhaps, "pontificating" is appropriate) upon my gleanings of world religions. I'm sure the light of day, coming soon, but not to my eyes, will have me wishing less or more.

 

Fuck it. To bed.

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

You can thank G_d that you live in such a place where you can behave the way you do and not get your butts run out of town!

 

and this is the problem: you secretly wish it WAS such a place where one could get one's butt run out of town; you just stating that in the tone above is pretty damn indicative.

 

maybe it is you who are the mincing nebish?

[bstach]

 

The context of Dawkins' arguments I point out above was not to refute the Bible point by point, but to refute the assertions of the religious that morality has its roots strictly in scripture and that atheists "have no morals". And again, your second sentence merely reinforces his point that everyone interprets the Bible differently according to an evolving sense of morality preestablished- from...where? Culture?

 

I'm not a Bible scholar and at the same time I can't align with his views 100% but I think he makes clear and cogent points. If you wish to take issue with his views and/or are prepared to have your views challenged, then I suggest reading his book, because it is interesting regardless of your inclinations.

 

Dawkins sums up his chapter on the roots of morality thus:

"...I and many others hold the belief that we do not need God to be good- or evil".

 

Jesus taught that true religion is bringing justice to the powerless, feeding the hungry and so on.

 

In all my life I have never understood why it need be any more complicated than that.

 

I don't neccessarily disagree with Dawkins on that point, just the arguments he uses to support it. The process of interpreting the Bible that I am trying to describe is refered to by Theologins as the " Hermeneutic Circle ". Basically, any part of the text must be interpreted within the context of the whole of the text as well as the historical and cultural context that it was written in. Thus it really takes repeated readings and reflection of the whole Bible to really zero in on the meaning of any particular passage. And an understanding of history and ancient culture is important for accurate interpretation. This all sounds like alot of work! Add all the ideosyncracies real people bring to the table and its no wonder that there is disagreement on what various parts mean.

[G-spotter]

This thread: quickly becoming a contender for "BIGGEST CC.COM CIRCLEJERK EVER"

[ivan]

This thread: quickly becoming a contender for "BIGGEST CC.COM CIRCLEJERK EVER"

why is it the religion tangents that alwasy get this notable nod?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

He's found someone whose twisted world-view he can parrot. The poor sap.

 

This, coming from a guy who makes blanket statements equating Stalin and Mao's moral framework as 'typical' of atheists, and alludes that these are examples of the end result of having no organized religion guiding one's life.

 

 

 

 

Wrong. I countered a blanket statement against Christians by pointing out non-Christians and Christian pretenders who have committed much evil. So bugger off.

[ivan]

Wrong. I countered a blanket statement against Christians by pointing out non-Christians and Christian pretenders who have committed much evil. So bugger off.

and yet one of the most fantastic examples of christian horseshit came during the reformation as christians slaughtered each other and their children by the bushels in the name of discerning "true" christians from "christian pretenders."

 

you can't be a christian and believe in fighting. ever. for any reason. and so pretty much every christian that ever lived was a "christain pretender."

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

you can't be a christian and believe in fighting. ever. for any reason. and so pretty much every christian that ever lived was a "christain pretender."

 

OMG! Christians are not perfect? HOly shit!

 

I've already heard your "message" - loud and clear. I think its unfair, exaggerated, off the mark, polar, extreme, and ignores a whole lot of good done by people of faith (not just Christian). You're not interested in acknowledging any point countering your absolutism, so it's not worth the time to continue to with the discussion.

 

[archenemy]

Wrong. I countered a blanket statement against Christians by pointing out non-Christians and Christian pretenders who have committed much evil. So bugger off.

and yet one of the most fantastic examples of christian horseshit came during the reformation as christians slaughtered each other and their children by the bushels in the name of discerning "true" christians from "christian pretenders."

 

you can't be a christian and believe in fighting. ever. for any reason. and so pretty much every christian that ever lived was a "christain pretender."

When were you annointed the one who gets to say who is a Christian and who is not? I am sure you realize how incredibly arrogant this sounds--it really is not like you.

[JayB]

Will no one stand up and defend the honor of the Prophet Leegnar, apostle of the Man/Goat/Snake God?

[bstach]

you can't be a christian and believe in fighting. ever. for any reason. and so pretty much every christian that ever lived was a "christain pretender."

 

Volumes of debate have been written on whether being Christian means being a pacificst. There are plenty of Christians on both sides of the debate that have informed, well thought out arguments. Personally, I do not equate "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek" with "thou shall lay down and be a doormat"