The Lord Is Calling Us To The Table

[thplinth]

Reasonable source.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

[thplinth]

One thing me and Jesus happen to agree on... ending male genital mutilation.

(53) His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" 
He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

[thplinth]

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

[thplinth]

Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father.

Hmmm...

Know thyself.

[DonnyTJS]

2 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

 

The link takes me to an index page that has no relevance to the point (do you expect me to look up your refutations for you?) and, anyway, as a sceptic myself, I don’t need to be told how to think like a sceptic (the video I haven’t watched). Wasn’t phart referring to you once when he commented on those who ‘contract out their thinking’?

I was picking up on one point – one often used in these sort of discussions – because it’s a good example of irrational thinking: you ask for a defence of Christianity “and spare us the ‘that was the old testament’ get out clause.” That’s akin to asking someone to defend democracy “but spare us the ‘universal suffrage’ bit” or to defend Shakespeare’s reputation as a dramatist “but spare us anything he wrote after the Henry VI plays” – it is that stupid.

You then list some Levitican strictures and some verses that you declare show that these are “Not suggestions, Not optional and Not open to interpretation,” while failing to note that when you put those verses back into their context they show precisely the opposite. You fail to notice this because you haven’t even read the text that you are purporting to analyse.

Tell me, if the Mosaic codes are “Not suggestions, Not optional and Not open to interpretation”, how is it that we see so few Orthodox Jews stoning homosexuals to death these days? And if these laws were not overturned within the narrative of the New Testament, how is it that Christianity is not in fact Judaism? It’s an incredibly stupid argument based on how you want those you are attacking to interpret texts rather than how, awkwardly, they have chosen to interpret them; and the interpretation you wish to foist onto others is of texts you haven’t even read yourself. Do you not see how weak that makes your case?

Textual analysis cannot be based on individual lines cherry-picked from their context; it requires an analysis of the text as a whole and that analysis should then result in a coherent interpretation. Christians and others have been analysing the Bible for close to two thousand years and have come up with various interpretations which are coherent. Yours isn’t.

 

Edited May 3, 2017 by DonnyTJS

[Eisegerwind]

4 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

 Christians and others have been analysing the Bible for close to two thousand years and have come up with various interpretations which are coherent. Yours isn’t.

 

I guess you could spend 2000 years analysing the writings of say, 'Coronation Street', and come up with coherent interpretations. Still be a waste of time.

[DonnyTJS]

18 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

I guess you could spend 2000 years analysing the writings of say, 'Coronation Street', and come up with coherent interpretations. Still be a waste of time.

Which, of course, is precisely not the point I was making. I was saying that when you analyse a text, the resulting analysis should be coherent - whether it is 'true' or a worthwhile venture is irrelevant to that point.

Edited May 4, 2017 by DonnyTJS

[Ally Bongo]

6 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

The link takes me to an index page that has no relevance to the point (do you expect me to look up your refutations for you?) and, anyway, as a sceptic myself, I don’t need to be told how to think like a sceptic (the video I haven’t watched). Wasn’t phart referring to you once when he commented on those who ‘contract out their thinking’?

I was picking up on one point – one often used in these sort of discussions – because it’s a good example of irrational thinking: you ask for a defence of Christianity “and spare us the ‘that was the old testament’ get out clause.” That’s akin to asking someone to defend democracy “but spare us the ‘universal suffrage’ bit” or to defend Shakespeare’s reputation as a dramatist “but spare us anything he wrote after the Henry VI plays” – it is that stupid.

You then list some Levitican strictures and some verses that you declare show that these are “Not suggestions, Not optional and Not open to interpretation,” while failing to note that when you put those verses back into their context they show precisely the opposite. You fail to notice this because you haven’t even read the text that you are purporting to analyse.

Tell me, if the Mosaic codes are “Not suggestions, Not optional and Not open to interpretation”, how is it that we see so few Orthodox Jews stoning homosexuals to death these days? And if these laws were not overturned within the narrative of the New Testament, how is it that Christianity is not in fact Judaism? It’s an incredibly stupid argument based on how you want those you are attacking to interpret texts rather than how, awkwardly, they have chosen to interpret them; and the interpretation you wish to foist onto others is of texts you haven’t even read yourself. Do you not see how weak that makes your case?

Textual analysis cannot be based on individual lines cherry-picked from their context; it requires an analysis of the text as a whole and that analysis should then result in a coherent interpretation. Christians and others have been analysing the Bible for close to two thousand years and have come up with various interpretations which are coherent. Yours isn’t.

 

I'll reply later but that is the longest piece of drivel pish i have read on here for some time x

Edited May 4, 2017 by Ally Bongo

[Eisegerwind]

11 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

Tell me, if the Mosaic codes are “Not suggestions, Not optional and Not open to interpretation”, how is it that we see so few Orthodox Jews stoning homosexuals to death these days?

 

I would imagine that quite a lot of orthodox jews would be up for stoning homosexuals if they thought they could get away with it without going to jail.

[DonnyTJS]

1 hour ago, Eisegerwind said:

I would imagine that quite a lot of orthodox jews would be up for stoning homosexuals if they thought they could get away with it without going to jail.

Maybe, though I don't think the phenomenon of queer-bashing tends to be religiously motivated, more the human tendency to hate otherness.

[Ally Bongo]

On 02/05/2017 at 11:46 PM, Scotty CTA said:

The different directions seem to be that I take God at His Word, and you have worked your way to a conclusion that you are comfortable with.

 

 

This is the where this conversation started. Is it only me that sees the irony of the above statement ?

On 02/05/2017 at 11:51 PM, Ally Bongo said:

Wow !

And you havent ?

If you have then you are pro slavery, pro genocide, pro child mutilation et al

And spare us the "that was the old testament" get out clause 

This was me trying to point out the irony 

The God of the old testament was in favour of these things right ?

Or is it made up by atheists ?

 

On 03/05/2017 at 0:11 AM, DonnyTJS said:

How is it a "get out clause"? It's absolutely fundamental to Christianity's understanding of itself - "the new covenant".

This was you trying to be clever

16 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

 

 

If you bothered to watch the video an ex evangelical southern baptist (who probably knows more than most) gives a concise, thoughtful and quiet presentation of the problems of interpretation.

The context / interpretation defence only goes so far

 

[thplinth]

4) Jesus said, "The man old in days will not hesitate to ask a small child seven days old about the place of life, and he will live. For many who are first will become last, and they will become one and the same."

Just having another browse but that one is easy I reckon. He is saying when you are really old... you fully understand the wisdom of a baby.

Edited May 4, 2017 by thplinth

[thplinth]

(5) Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."

Yeah... I think this is another know yourself post and then other 'shit' slots into place... 

 

[thplinth]

(6) His disciples questioned him and said to him, "Do you want us to fast? How shall we pray? Shall we give alms? What diet shall we observe?" 
Jesus said, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered."

Fhhuck me that is one super tricky sentence.

I ask any Tamber on here to reduce that down to something understandable. 

Edited May 4, 2017 by thplinth

[thplinth]

 For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."

For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered."

Oh it was in both verses. Did not notice. I think it is saying whatever you hide away hoping no one will notice will become your reality, big time... 

 

[thplinth]

(9) Jesus said, "Now the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered them. Some fell on the road; the birds came and gathered them up. Others fell on the rock, did not take root in the soil, and did not produce ears. And others fell on thorns; they choked the seed(s) and worms ate them. And others fell on the good soil and it produced good fruit: it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure."

Your man is saying no matter who is the sower that only so many (a small proportion it seems) are ready to hear at any given time. 

(Yeah got to agree with him here.)

Edited May 4, 2017 by thplinth

[thplinth]

(10) Jesus said, "I have cast fire upon the world, and see, I am guarding it until it blazes."

It was an intellectual revolution... 'a new covenant'. A completely different way of looking at the same world.

 

[thplinth]

For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered."

Ahhh I get it now. It is a know thyself post.... Then you will see.

Things hidden will become manifest... things covered will be uncovered.

 

[thplinth]

You can see how these ideas appealed. They are appealing now. 

Compared to the brutality of old testament thinking you can understand why the 'new covenant' took hold. 

Instead of 'an eye for an eye' thinking...it was 'love thy neighbour', turn the other cheek thinking.

Even now what world do you want to live in? That is why his ideas took off like they did (IMO).

(Also I reckon he ate a lot of shrooms myself. )

Edited May 4, 2017 by thplinth

[DonnyTJS]

8 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

This was you trying to be clever.

 

Well, no. There are plenty of examples in the later post of me trying to be clever, but that one was just straightforward. Christian's see Jesus Christ as instituting a new covenant. It's at least implicit in the gospels (eg: Luke 22:20, and in the verses that come before those on the law that you quoted) and is made explicit in the Pauline letters (Hebrews 8:6ff). Given that, I don't see how you could say to any Christian, of whatever stamp, that they should be bound by the codes of the Pentateuch because the whole basis of their faith is that they aren't.

That was all I was saying - not clever, just obvious. For biblical literalists (a minority as thplinth points out somewhere above), they explain it however they explain it, but I don't see an issue even for them - a later covenant replaces an earlier covenant.

In your reply to me you chose to post some verses on the Law completely out of context and then made the ex cathedra pronouncement that the Mosaic codes are therefore “Not suggestions, Not optional and Not open to interpretation” when the fact that they are is self-evident and placing those verses back in their context helps explain why. That's when I started trying to be clever ...

[Eisegerwind]

Happy summer soltice everyone.I briefly considered walking dowm the local high street  with simulated nuclear fusionmodels to show how our sun is superior to other galactic suns., did'n't bother. Probably get another chance next year, god spared.

[Orraloon]

9 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

Happy summer soltice everyone.I briefly considered walking dowm the local high street  with simulated nuclear fusionmodels to show how our sun is superior to other galactic suns., did'n't bother. Probably get another chance next year, god spared.

Which planet do you live on? You're about 4 days late.

[Flure]

On 03/05/2017 at 11:57 PM, thplinth said:

One thing me and Jesus happen to agree on... ending male genital mutilation.

(53) His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?" 
He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

Does that mean that the human male would have evolved to have a circumsized penis had is been beneficial?