Re: Security Guard - God Guided Me And Protected Me

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:14:23 -0600, "John Galt"
<whoisjohngalt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Rumpelstiltskin" <PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message


<snip>


The word of God is "consensus", eh?

No. Interpretations vary, and the Church looks for consensus on matters of
conflicted meaning.




What did you mean by "no" then?



<snip>



Same issues. You can't logically parse the mitzvahs away from each other.
Either they're all in force or none of them are in force when it comes to
maintaining the covenant relationship.


Okay, so you don't wear clothing of mixed fibers, and
you stone your kids to death if they depart from your
version of Christianity.

No, but now we're back to the Christ-as-fullfillment issue which you also
dislike. :-)




I don't like it or dislike it. It's too loony to either like or
dislike, IMV. I'm just looking for internal consistency,
and don't even find that.




Here's the issue: The Law remains the expression of righteousness. It's
no
longer required to keep to it in an Orthodox Jewish fashion if Christ is
your proxy.

That's not what Matthew says. It's not what Jesus
said. It's not what the bible says. It's an interpretation.

That's what it says. How is the word "fulfill" ever used when NOT to
signify
the end of something, or at least a significant change in it?


You're interpreting, a And not everybody agrees with you,
as you really must admit. If I fulfill my desire for eggnog
by buying some, that doesn't mean I no longer have any
desire for eggnog.

As you say. Obviously, there are variations in understanding.



That's what I said.




The Christians you're thinking of are correct in using it as
guidance for righteousness, but NOT as a justification for bigotry, and
certainly not for any violence.

The bigots don't agree, and they justify their views
on the same book. If the book is so unclear that it
can be interpreted so wrongly, and yet the bible is
divinely inspired, that's God's fault.

If the book is clear, but people choose to ignore it, then God's not
invovled in their behavior, which is what I originally contended.


If the book were clear, people would understand it clearly.
Are people sent to hell for misunderstanding? Or do you
think that all misunderstanding about the bible is willful?
That would be hard to defend, since there's so much
running controversy about it even among "theologians".

I would have no idea. Concern about who and who not gets a place in hell is
above my pay grade.



That kind of makes a hash about knowing how to
get into heaven, doesn't it?



<snip>


If that were true, then Peter, who was closest to Christ, wouldn't have
endorsed Paul. However, seeing the matter as you do makes you halfway to
becoming a Muslim. That's the way they see it.


Ah, now we have yet another intermediary. Do we even
need Jesus or Jehovah at all? It seems that all the business
of the church is done by functionaries.

What a mess.

We don't have another intermediary. Where do you read that?


Peter, Paul

I don't see how either can be seen as an intermediary.



Are they God, or Jesus?




As lifetime observant Jews, it comes as
no surprise that there was some back-and-forth on the topic, and
Jesus'
brother James, who took the position of the bishop of Jerusalem after
the
death of his brother, even appears in the Rabbinical histories of the
day,
spoken of with great respect because of his unfailing adherence to the
Law.
(In a word, if you were going to lead a Jewish personality cult around
Jesus
immediately after His death, you BETTER make sure that you didn't look
like
heretics to the Sanhedrin, as they had already demonstrated a rather
low
tolerance for challenges to their authority.)

Now, if you (or any other internet source) wishes to self-appoint
themselves
as Judge and Jury and collectively decide that the Apostles,

Well, you did that, or at least you accepted pronouncements
from people who are neither God nor Jesus, so why shouldn't
I think for myself too, also without relying on God or Jesus.

No problem with thinking for oneself.

It precludes accepting something so convoluted,
just because somebody else claimed it.

Again, opinion stated as fact.



You yourself said you believe things because other
people agreed on how to interpret them.

Yes. Don't see how what you said is or is not relevant.



How is your position then anything other than
"opinion stated as fact"? If it started out as somebody
else's opinion, not even your own, or if it's your opinion
they were divinely inspired, that doesn't help one bit.






It very much looks to me that my views are more coherent,
enlightened, merciful, and just, than anything those strange
ancient dudes came up with.

Don't we all? :-)

Apparently not. Some follow the old dudes, or
follow what somebody else said about the old dudes,
or somebody's questionable translation or outright
forgery of what somebody else said about the old
dudes. All divinely inspired, of course.

You're a very well accomplished cynic.


It's not at all hard. It would be illogical to be anything
else in the case of the bible, as I've amply demonstrated.


the Apostolic
Fathers, Justin Martyr, John Climacus, Augustine, the
Cappadocians.....yadayadayada up to Thomas Aquinas and then all the
way
through the second millenia of Chrisitanity and up to the present day
have
ALL gotten it wrong on the Law/Christ interpretation because a bunch
of
internet atheists got together and decided that all of the
aforementioned
theologians goofed, that's your business.

The theologians seem to have changed their positions quite
a lot over the ages.

There is no question that people see theology through the lens of their
personal experiences, which is highly tempered by the sociology of the
day.
It takes some thought and wisdom to find those organic threads of
development throughout history.


Hmm, I wonder what lenses the women burning at the
stake saw things through.

I suspect it was a dim view of people's behavior.


No comment about God's will, and who will be going
to heaven and hell based on their actions due to their
interpretation of Exodus 22:18?

As I said, above my pay grade. All I know is that (1) we have way too many
believers who pick and choose out of the Law to suit their own biases, and
(2) no Christian is authorized to act against the secular law.




<snip>



There's no "law of the land." Consider this, Rump. When the media wants
to
do a "piece" on gay life in America, do they come to interview you
sitting
at Starbucks with a friend, or do they tape some footage of the most
outrageous moments of a Gay Pride parade?

Yes there is. Murder is against the law of the land. I don't
know if I've ever encountered any media piece on "gay life",
other than the stuff in the gay rags themselves which is
largely about drag and leather, not my things.

I don't know what sensation pieces about the Gay Pride
parade have to do with the law of the land.

Nothing. The point is that the media sensationalizes everything, and one
cannot draw conclusions on lifestyles or institution based on it.

The media and what interests it is not an issue at hand. The
issues are equal rights for gay people, whether "God" is a
reasonable conjecture, and whether the bible plus "judgment"
plus "just God" can be reconciled which, as I've demonstrated,
they cannot.

You have demonstrated it to your satisfaction only, which leaves us right
back where we were prior to the thread.


I've demonstrated it logically. Whether or not one
accepts logic over something else is not something
I have power over.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... >>> themselves Christians, have a consistent interpretation of the Bible. ... >> Catholics believe that if someone is baptized (notably even by a pagan ... it actually is Jesus talking here. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Centrality to the Christian Message": The Christian Bible (was: Re: Active Ignorance or Denial
    ... authority of Jesus, and furthermore have a claim to special knowledge ... may be that you are correct in your interpretation, ... Only the quality of the message ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: The Corruption of the Injil.
    ... "shubuha lahum". ... Shabir Ally in a debate with Mike Licona on the ressurection (Did Jesus ... the second interpretation: ... the Qur'an categorically denies the story of the crucifixion of ...
    (soc.religion.islam)
  • Re: Conflicts, contrasts or differences between Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain
    ... and very different from the usual interpretation ... that Jesus gave Simon the name 'Kephah' on this occasion. ... I've heard that before too, but why in verse 16 does it say, "Simon Peter ... interpretation used by Augustine et al were quite different to what ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Gay Christianity
    ... The problem is that different people interpret the same evidence in ... in a highly biased late 20th century interpretation of the biblical text. ... The 1st century religious leaders accused Jesus of many things: ... What is obvious is that the evidence being offered that Jesus was gay is ...
    (uk.religion.christian)