Obama..... not religious?

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

Very nice post!

ditto.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Well...the god of the Bible...specifically the god of the Old Testament...IS the god Jesus worshiped...and if you are professing to be a Christian have the ******* integrity to admit you are worshiping that god. Yes, I did call attention to hypocrisy and almost laughable rationalizations...but that is part of what we do here in A2K.

Rigth, which is why he went out of his way to reject those who had misconstrued him, even within the Torah.

1 Reply

@JPB,

One last comment.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So I discuss the book a lot...and call attention to the folly of supposing it to be a special, holy book...a book that imparts divine knowledge.

I think that kind of discussion is healthy.

Obviously some people think it is not healthy or proper. Some people think it should simply be accepted as a special book...one that imparts divine revelation.

I agree which is why I spend time discussing a book that does not, to me, impart divine revelation. On the other hand, while I think that a fundamentalist interpretation of the bible is very dangerous when those making that interpretation want it to apply to someone else (Paul syndrome), I fully accept that there are millions of christians in the world who are comforted by a more liberal interpretation of the bible. Who are we to judge them so long as they live their beliefs and don't affect yours and mine?

0 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

Jesus then says that he is here to fulfill the law of the Torah and restates it for a contemporary age --

No he doesn't! Nothing of that sort. In fact, it can be argued that he said the exact opposite of what you are stating here. Here is a quote:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you; UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with until it all comes true." Matthew 5:17ff

Quote:

Nowhere in Matthew 5 does he mention homosexuality or slavery.

No...but he says he has not come to abolish any of the laws...and the passages about homosexuality and slavery are part of the laws. So in effect, he was saying they do apply. Unless you are ready to argue that the heavens and the earth have passed away...which was the ancient Hebrew way of saying "forever."

Quote:

The christian who believes that the Word of Jesus is the Word of God can easily make the case that Leviticus no longer applies.

They can easily pretend that it doesn't apply, but only by rejecting what Jesus said...because he said that they do still apply.

All this “the old law does not apply” has to do primarily with Paul's intevention at Antioch. A group of Jews there was arguing that gentile converts had to be circumcised...including a companion of Paul's. Paul argued (dictated, actually) that gentile converts to the new religion, which at that time was considered just a branch of Judaism, did not have to be circumcised and did not have to adhere to the Jewish dietary protocols. That is all. Not that the old laws in general do not apply. That is merely a rationalization of later Christians. (I'll start a thread that deals with that!)

In any case, let's pretend that the argument that the laws of the Old Testament do not apply--actually is valid (it doesn't come close)...but let's pretend.

If we take the passage about homosexuality ““If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” Leviticus 20-13”...you would then be able to argue that a Christian no longer was obligated to stone a homosexual to death for the abominable deed...BUT YOU COULD NOT ARGUE THAT THE GOD NO LONGER CONSIDERS HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT TO BE AN ABOMINATION.

C'mon, JPB. The argument you are making does not work. Acknowledge that!

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Let go of the concept that Jesus accepted the entire Torah as Law. Look at the Ten Commandments as the Law given to Moses. Then look at Matthew 5 with fresh eyes.

Jesus did not embrace the Judaism of his day. His message was a fundamentalist reinterpretation of the 10 Commandments as he saw them being abused around him.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

C'mon, JPB. The argument you are making does not work. Acknowledge that!

Well, it clearly doesn't work for you and Thomas, but I'm not the one calling people hypocrits, delusional, or dishonest.

It makes no difference to me whatsoever what people believe; just so long as their beliefs don't impinge on my right to believe as I choose. I'm a firm believer in freedom of religion but a strong opponent of any theocracy that instills a faith practice on it's citizenry. I'm not attempting to change your opinion in any way, my purpose is only to counteract the denigration of millions of people who are not doing you or me or any of the rest of us any harm.

2 Replies

@JPB,

http://able2know.org/topic/128690-1

0 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

Let go of the concept that Jesus accepted the entire Torah as Law. Look at the Ten Commandments as the Law given to Moses. Then look at Matthew 5 with fresh eyes.

Jesus did not embrace the Judaism of his day. His message was a fundamentalist reinterpretation of the 10 Commandments as he saw them being abused around him.

Bottom line...Jesus says that laws (not just the 10--but the hundreds) DO APPLY.
\
Why are you denying that?

Jesus says that they do apply.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Jesus then says that he is here to fulfill the law of the Torah and restates it for a contemporary age --

No he doesn't! Nothing of that sort. In fact, it can be argued that he said the exact opposite of what you are stating here. Here is a quote:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you; UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with until it all comes true." Matthew 5:17ff

"He doesn't" what? Restate the law? JPB's post made it pretty clear that He did.

And lose the frothing-at-the mouth antagonism, Frank. It doesn't improve your credibility.

2 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

It makes no difference to me whatsoever what people believe; just so long as their beliefs don't impinge on my right to believe as I choose. I'm a firm believer in freedom of religion but a strong opponent of any theocracy that instills a faith practice on it's citizenry. I'm not attempting to change your opinion in any way, my purpose is only to counteract the denigration of millions of people who are not doing you or me or any of the rest of us any harm.

By calling my reasoning faulty...YES YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE MY OPINION...and I am trying to change yours.

Wake the hell up.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

And lose the frothing-at-the mouth antagonism, Frank. It doesn't improve your credibility.

No frothing going on. Just discussion. And I'm not worried about credibility with people willing to distort the words or Jesus in name of Jesus.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

And I'm not worried about credibility with people willing to distort the words or Jesus in name of Jesus.

I'm afraid that's already happened, unless you're saying the Bible is the revealed word of God. Which you seem to espouse when it suits your purposes.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

By calling my reasoning faulty...YES YOU ARE TRYING TO CHANGE MY OPINION...and I am trying to change yours.

Wake the hell up.

I didn't call your reasoning faulty. I called it a fundamentalist perspective which is one of three christian perspectives that include fundamentalism, conservatism, and liberal theology. I don't think the fundamentalist perspective is any more or less valid than any other perspective for those who believe it. Nor do I think the others are dishonest or delusional. They are simply perspectives that have no influence on my life whatsoever SO LONG AS those who carry them don't try to bring their religious laws to become the law of the land.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

I'm afraid that's already happened, unless you're saying the Bible is the revealed word of God. Which you seem to espouse when it suits your purposes.

This makes no sense, DrewDad. What were you trying to say...that you failed so miserably at saying?

1 Reply

@JPB,

Quote:

I didn't call your reasoning faulty.

If you want to play with words...play with 'em. You have been countering damn near anything and everything I say. To me...that is calling my reasoning faulty.

Quote:

I called it a fundamentalist perspective which is one of three christian perspectives that include fundamentalism, conservatism, and liberal theology.

I am not a Christian...and I do not have a Christian perspective. I am calling attention to the hypocrisy of Christianity.

Deal with that as you will.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I can see that you enjoy riling people up.

Anywho....

I'm saying that "distort[ing] the words [of] Jesus in name of Jesus" has already happened. Everything you read in the Bible is filtered through the perceptions of both the original author, and the folks who translated it.

Which doesn't make it useless; one just has to take the parts that are relevant today. Which you seem to object to, but that's not my problem.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Frank, I can see that you enjoy riling people up.

No, I do not. I acknowledge that I do not hate the idea that people get riled at some of the things I say...because I chalk that up to having hit a nerve. On some level, the person who gets riled GETS what is being said.

Anyway, some of the things I discuss...and the perspective I bring to them, do rile people. I can't help that. I'm not going to stop discussing these things because they rile people.

I think my observations about the Bible...are spot on. I'm willing to debate them with anybody.

Quote:

I'm saying that "distort[ing] the words [of] Jesus in name of Jesus" has already happened. Everything you read in the Bible is filtered through the perceptions of both the original author, and the folks who translated it.

Okay...I was not able to discern that from your original post...but now it makes sense....AND I AGREE COMPLETELY.

But if one were to take the words of Jesus as shown in the Bible at Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law..."

...and further distort them so that the words supposedly mean... “I HAVE come to abolish the law...” ...that is a step further. And certainly something worth discussing.

Quote:

Which doesn't make it useless; one just has to take the parts that are relevant today. Which you seem to object to, but that's not my problem.

If a person can take “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law...” and have it mean, “I have come to abolish the law...”...

...and take “(homosexual conduct)...(is an abominable deed)...” and have it mean, “...is NOT an abominable deed...”...

...and take “Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess...such slaves you may own as chattels, and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves." and have it mean, “...slavery is wrong and immoral...”...

...well, then the Bible can rightly be considered useless...or at least in so far as anyone with a brain using it for a moral compass.

Why do you have so much difficulty with that?

Truly...do you think it makes more sense to twist and torture logic and language in an attempt to make what doesn't truly fit...fit???

You seem like an intelligent person. How can you be blind to this?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Frank, I can see that you enjoy riling people up.

No, I do not.

Sure you do. That's why you throw out so many insults. Own it.

As for the rest, you seem to be the only one arguing that the Bible must be either taken in its entirety or discarded.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Like I said, not sure how you can be so blind on this issue...but it must take practice.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

And lose the frothing-at-the mouth antagonism, Frank. It doesn't improve your credibility.

I think it's not so much frothing as strutting...

1 Reply

Obama..... not religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know