The Old Testament or Torah has been bastardized just as much if not more by people with agendas than any other religious document. It is all a joke. I am no absolutist, there is no almost no absolute truth in this world. The Son of God was always at his right hand according to scripture. Do I really believe that, or more importantly do I really care? The message of Jesus is what I care more about. I don't take all of it either, just what I find to be useful. I am not a religious person at all.
What an interesting turn this makes! I can almost relate to the statements above, esp. as regards the message(s) of Jesus (who does seem to have been a great fellow) and the lack of absolute truth (or, as I might put it, knowledge).
Well there are Jews out there who disagree with you, if you really looked into it. Your assumptions about their education is also very laughable.
Of course there are. I have two acquaintances and one friend who call themselves Messianic Jews. And I wasn't so much making an assumption as referencing a statistic; I've seen studies of messianic movements in Judaism, and those that take on a Christian character (
i.e., look to Jesus) seem to be most persuasive to Jews without a strong background in Jewish history and theology, such as those raised in a secular environment.
Thats great that you have a religion I guess. You obviously take it very seriously and are not held back by any of its principles at the same time. That of course is my assumption.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. To clarify, my personal identification with Judaism is
cultural, not religious; I have no faith in the supernatural whatsoever.
... Why believe that humans need a divine 'saviour' in the first place?
Because I believe humans to be absolute shit and truly deserving of death. They need a whole lot of help even if a God didn't exist and there was no afterlife. We are all asses, regardless of religion, race or any other division. I am included. Jesus at least offers forgiveness and a chance to improve yourself. Trying to pretend that you are doing good enough to keep all the laws really is still not being perfect. Striving for improvement is the key factor, otherwise I am just "treading water" so to speak to avoid drowning.
At times I think I really share your misanthropy. This is a constant battle in my life--between looking at the extraordinary foolishness of man and dreaming of his potential. Most of the time my cynicism wins out, but that would still not be enough for me to want supernatural help.
Personally, I find comfort in studies that place us within our natural context, as I find it easier to accept human stupidity when the line separating us from the rest of the animals is not artificially enhanced. That is, I find it easier to deal with people precisely
because I do not believe in a soul or a G-d. If humans really are the special little creatures the Bible says, I'd say the whole planet is probably fucked...
That [Elijah] is who John the Baptist was thought to represent, the person who was announcing the coming of the Messiah (Jesus). Do you really believe that the faithful dead will reawaken literally and that a heaven on earth will occur just for Jews? Such exclusion based solely on lineage is ridiculous to say the least.
Do
I believe it? Hell no! But to answer your criticism, I don't think an exclusion based on Jewishness is any less or more ridiculous than one based on faith in a dead Jewish rabbi being the incarnation of G-d...
As a life-long Pyrrhonhist, I can't stand the idea of
any sort of claim to universal truth.
The Bible isn't taken seriously by most Christians, only by those pushing an agenda.
I think you're wrong on that account. Polls of Americans consistently show outrageously strong popular support for such ideas as special creation, the Noachian flood, and End Times prophecy. The evangelical movement is the fastest-growing segment of Christianity; indeed, one can
almost say the only significant growth area, as membership of 'traditional' denominations like Anglicanism is in a steep nosedive.
Exactly so. Slavery is just a given to Paul; just a natural way of life. The unquestioning acceptance of slavery rings out as an endorsement and justification to my ears... especially when taken in context (e.g., metaphorically making all believers into slaves).
Well there is more accepting of slavery in the good Old Testament and the Torah. Actually it does nothing at all to condemn it despite what changes that have been made later on. Those changes are obviously seen as after the fact and a bastardization of the original texts. Comprimise if you will.
I'm not sure I understand this comment either. Both the Hebrew
and Christian Bibles endorse slavery; I certainly never meant to imply otherwise.
... Of course you don't believe that God designed heaven or hell for humans or really that kind of afterlife.
That's not really the point. I've never believed in
any kind of afterlife, because the idea has never seemed appealing to me. But as my position is fairly uncommon, it's usually much more interesting to talk about anyone else's views of the afterlife!
You are making a doctrinal justification for breaking one of the mitzvoth; if this was his 'purpose, then his purpose did not involve keeping the Law perfectly, did it?
Many Jewish men were not of the purpose to have children, some are incapable. Jesus was going to die, not be a father raising children with a wife. Sacrificial lamb, not one made for procreating.
All perfectly reasonable statements, and I completely agree with you. My original point here was to take issue with the belief that Jesus was the only one who kept
all of the Law. Whilst I have no doubt that he was a very righteous man who kept all of the mitzvoth to the best of his ability, I see no reason to presume that he kept it all perfectly, or that no-one else has ever done as well as he.
Tell that to Paul, who argued rather the reverse!
Paul was not for some laws, but not the entire law was to be forsaken. He did make leniency in the whole eating of pork thing. He appealed to Gentiles and make concessions to do so. If he didn't then we wouldn't have some of the problems that we have now. Israel would not exist for one.
Now I'm really lost.
Paul's mission was to the Gentiles--the pagans of the Roman world--and he did not make any requirement that they convert to, or accept, Hallachah (the Jewish Law). This was in contrast to James's original strategy: the belief that to be 'saved' one needed to be Jewish. Once you remove the requirement for Jewishness, what use have you for the Law? Why would a pagan adopt any part of it not specifically called for by Pauline Christianity?
On the other hand, Paul seems to have thought that Jews who accepted Jesus
should keep to the Law, but that's a very special case, and one that quickly ceased to be relevant (as Christianity only really grew outside of Judaism).
But what do you mean about "problems that we have now", and about Israel? Which 'problems'?
Forgiveness is a theme in a good deal of what Jesus preaches. I agree with that more actually, even thought it seems close to impossible to do so.
I'm quite fond of forgiveness and universal love, too, but I'd never make a hard rule about it. I do not think that folks like Iosef Stalin or, umm, Michael Vick(!) should be endlessly forgiven and set loose to cause more harm...
Exactly so. I do not even think there is justification based on the synoptic gospels for believing in Jesus' divinity. Really, I do not think there is any justification, coming from the pre-Pauline Scriptures and the history, for believing that a man could be also G-d. But if you read the Bible through pagan eyes, such things become more possible.
The Messiah isn't supposed to be a Son of God? David was a child of God as well, but Jesus was to be directly linked to God as an extension (being Jews). It is like God putting his hand on earth in a mortal sense and sending it to hell to pay for the sins of humanity...
Oh, no! This is a common misunderstanding, though, and I've often heard Christians argue that Jesus was killed because he called himself the Messiah--but this was no crime in Judaism! There have been
dozens of Messiahs in Jewish history, and none of them have ever been considered divine. Except for Jesus, of course, but as I am suggesting that idea came from the pagan world.
You are speaking of a placebo effect almost...
Hmmm. Well, the description 'placebo' makes the assumption that there is a 'real' effect and one that is counterfeited by science. I am more inclined to think that the effects were
always natural, but I can see your point.
That is your rationalization for my experience. Unfortunately it wasn't like that...
Oh, not at all! That was an example from
my life to illustrate a general point, not a suggestion that your experience was similar. I am merely suggesting to you that phenomena which we
perceive to be supernatural in origin (and 'perception' can come from any sense or no senses at all) are not necessarily so, and there may be a more logical explanation for them. Sort of an Ockham's Razor type of argument, if I may be permitted the cliché.
Feel free to criticize my insane and pretty much delisional nature. I love it, as such things make life much less mundane.
I don't think you are any more delusional than I am, or any other human for that matter. At least, I have no sensible grounds to make such a judgement of you! My comment is a general one; the human brain is constantly giving us incomplete or faulty data, and as the mind is a causal machine, some of this data can be interpreted in a supernatural sense. The 'delusions' are a part of normal brain function; it is the
interpretations that I frequently take issue with.
"Is she gone yet?"