EADD Theology Megathread - Book II - Exodus

[StoneHappyMonday]

A very important observation, and one which the devout atheist boneheads tend to gloss over. Along with organised religion's central, even pivotal role in securing many of the 'freedoms' we take for granted

What absolute shit. Working class secular people fought for my freedoms. Y'know, atheist boneheads.

Have you been at the drugs again? Or are you just full of middle class wank?

 

[Eveleivibe]

.....and now you're all ganging up on Raas. Believe his beliefs differ to yours. UNBELIEVABLE!

 

[rickolasnice]

Vurtual - There has never been a fascist democidal dictator that did anything in the name of atheism..

That old "Yeah but what about when atheists did this" is stupid.

Hitler was a vegetarian, too. He also had a moustache.. as did many other fascist cunts..

Maybe they did it because of their moustache?

Plus Hitler was pretty damn catholic.

And I still can't work out what Sammy G is trying to say.

 

[Vurtual]

^I didn't say that i don't think - i was thinking of stalin as the athiest; hitler wasn't overtly religious though, and worked against the church didn't he? While plenty of americans are religious, the 'sophisticated' plutocrats and technocrats are just as likely to be secular or athiest (or more 'philosophical') than the average christian - and they've caused plenty of evil. My point was that both standpoints can equally do evil when applied at a state level (just the less religious one has had more sucess in the most populous century). Whether they clothe their evil in religion or atheism is a matter of pragmatism or marketing as often as it's belief - they don't do the evil because of the atheism or the religion in reality at state level i thnk

Imo you can't attribute evil actions of states or people to religion in itself (or atheism in itself for that matter) - you have to blame the people. However much evil has been done in the name of the religion, it's still hard to find this amount of evil in original texts (unless you selectively quote and de-contextualise).

 

[maxalfie]

Saw an interesting short film on Youtube recently about 'The book of Enoch' if I recall correctly.
It was about angels that had been tempted by earth women and came down had sex with them which made the women give birth to giants.
There was more to the story than that but was quite an interesting story to hear about.

 

[Bella Figura]

I have nothing to add beside this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZy5lbWb9Xg

Under Jewish law, a mohel must draw blood from the circumcision wound. Most mohels do it by hand with a suction device, but some Orthodox groups use their mouth to draw blood after cutting the foreskin. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have recently (2012) issued a warning about the health implications of this practice, citing 11 cases of neonatal HSV and two recorded fatalities. A review (2013) of cases of neonatal HSV infections in Israel identified ritual circumcision as the source of HSV-1 transmission in 31.8% of cases.

those crazy mohels.

 

[rickolasnice]

Saw an interesting short film on Youtube recently about 'The book of Enoch' if I recall correctly.
It was about angels that had been tempted by earth women and came down had sex with them which made the women give birth to giants.
There was more to the story than that but was quite an interesting story to hear about.

Seconded.. The book of Enoch is a good read and the "anointed one" (if i remember correctly) is one of the characters in ancient Jewish scripture that Jesus is a rip-off of.

Vurtual - i was replying to a possible quote taken out of context in Sammy G's post from you (on this page)

 

[pinkpapaver]

But sammy the quran supercedes all that and the latr parts in the quran supercede the earlier parts.
Theres always a littel glimmer of truth in the tales and some sort of crazy or even logical reason but bollocks will i be liviing a life by a book !

 

[Raasyvibe]

Not yet haha

lol, Dan has nothing intelligent to say coz he's too high so just posts internet memes...hahahah seen it all before




haven't forgotten about this thread and above posts, just been a very busy weekend... back soon!

 

[Raasyvibe]

Ok so, as I think someone else already mentioned, why do you pick the "No bum fun" rule and stand by that so strongly when there are plenty of other similar silly rules that you don't seem to care about. I assume you wear clothes with mixed fabrics? Fish on a Friday?

Can someone with more bible knowledge than me skelp up a list of all the mental rules and we'll see how many Raas cares about? Not simply to be a dick, although that is part of it, but the homophobic christian has always fascinated me. It's like they say "Oh well, it's not my fault. The bible says so, so I must obey" yet they patch all the other stupid shit it says. Almost as though they pick the bits that fit their own prejudices...

It's a bad day when you're less progressive than the pope (the grand-wizard of religious evil) Raas. You should have a think about that.

Raas is going to spin out the usual 'the Old Covenant was superseded by the new, except for the bits that suit us or don't embarrass us' spiel.

So let's begin with Leviticus. Here are some things which the Book of Leviticus explicitly forbids:


• Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (11:27)

• Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)

• Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)



etc...

This ones been answered quite a few times. 2 examples:

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...Megathread?p=11214303&viewfull=1#post11214303

Jesus of course went AGAINST what was directed in the "law of moses" and said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (Saving the womans life)

And he continously preaches against what is written in the OT, time and time again. Here's a load more examples of his opposition towards the coarse OT:

I answered it here also:




http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...c-Religion?p=11243210&viewfull=1#post11243210

do you believe that adulterers should be stoned? do you wear clothes of mixed fibers?

alasdair

And please understand, the vile, absurd rules in the corrupted OT are not to literally be taken as the "word of God". Hence the fact Jesus was constantly defying them.

Alasdairm you need to read about the histocracy of the OT. It's barabaric verses have also been discussed in this thread. We Christians pay as much attention to "stoning sexual sinners" as jesus did:

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst,

4 they said unto Him, “Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned but what sayest thou?”

6 This they said testing Him, that they might have cause to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

---

Also loads of other verses in the NT speaking out against animal sacrifices, capital punishment and all the other silly rules... The NT does a pretty good job of correcting the Old testament

 

[parttime crackhead]

Wait, so now you're saying that those rules don't count? Why do you hate the gays then?

Are you saying that the new testament cancels all the other silly rules, but not that one?

Can you show me where the new testament cancels the no fish on friday rule and the no mixed fabrics one. Thanks.

 

[Eveleivibe]

lol, Dan has nothing intelligent to say coz he's too high so just posts internet memes...hahahah seen it all before

Agreed! I've never seen Dan utter anything of intelligence or worthy of discussion hence the reason I completely disregard his existence, what I do see from him is cutting remarks that add no value to any discussion whatsoever. For instance "raas is talking bollucks again". Instead why not do what others, such as PTCH and Alasdair, has done n use valuable evidence / exemplars to contest raaas' statements.

It does rather make Dan come across as petulant n non-intelligent. Prove me wrong, Dan?!!!

Evey

 

[Sammy G]

Also loads of other verses in the NT speaking out against animal sacrifices, capital punishment and all the other silly rules... The NT does a pretty good job of correcting the Old testament[/hr]

It doesn't though.

And in any case, if the NT 'corrects' the old, why not jettison the Old Testament entirely, instead of merely downplaying it whenever it suits you?

Same old weak rubbish yet again. So please enlighten us, raas - just why is homosexuality 'wrong'?

Can you show me where the new testament cancels the no fish on friday rule and the no mixed fabrics one. Thanks.

Nice. :D

 

[ColtDan]

lol, Dan has nothing intelligent to say coz he's too high so just posts internet memes...hahahah seen it all before

Got plenty to say, just cant be assed to type it. debating with a bellend like you isnt worth my time tbh

 

[Vurtual]

Agreed! I've never seen Dan utter anything of intelligence or worthy of discussion hence the reason I completely disregard his existence, what I do see from him is cutting remarks that add no value to any discussion whatsoever. For instance "raas is talking bollucks again". Instead why not do what others, such as PTCH and Alasdair, has done n use valuable evidence / exemplars to contest raaas' statements.

It does rather make Dan come across as petulant n non-intelligent. Prove me wrong, Dan?!!!

Evey

Sometimes, less is...

 

[BecomingJulie]

Anyway, there is no "no fish on Fridays" rule in Christianity. Rather, fish is the *only* m**t you can eat on a Friday.

Of course, if the intention was to see how long we could last without one of that lot realising, I've just spoiled it .....

 

[parttime crackhead]

Eh aye, that's what I was going for. Honestly

 

[Raasyvibe]

Wait, so now you're saying that those rules don't count? Why do you hate the gays then?

Are you saying that the new testament cancels all the other silly rules, but not that one?

Can you show me where the new testament cancels the no fish on friday rule and the no mixed fabrics one. Thanks.

Sure thing.

15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace

23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, qimprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes

Whereas systematically correcting each single rule would become a bit time-consuming and page-heavy, it is clear that the Bible says Christ came to do away with all the additional ceremonial rules added by the Pharisee's and Sadducee's.

The NT does a pretty good job of correcting the Old testament

It doesn't though.

I think by looking at the verses it's pretty clear it nullifies all the nonsense to quite an extent. If you're not convinced, there's many good articles on the 'net going into much more detail about this.




Anyway. Now JC has put us straight about the whole animal sacrifices, capital punishment and thousands of silly ceremonial rules... one may argue that we should get rid of the old, defunct book. Like someone has:

And in any case, if the NT 'corrects' the old, why not jettison the Old Testament entirely, instead of merely downplaying it whenever it suits you?

Ok sooo... JC answers this one also

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith

In this verse Jesus is differentiating between the intended law (justice, mercy, faith) and the law how man falsely purported it (political corruption, silly rules).


The OT still has values and ideals, but it's intertwined by the culture of the people God worked through which was utterly barbaric. The sentiments remain, which is why "not one stroke of a letter" will pass away and why we keep and read the book today.




is this making sense? can I move onto why we should hate gays now*? or is more clarifying necessary?






*tongue firmly in cheek

 

[Sammy G]

is this making sense? can I move onto why we should hate gays now*? or is more clarifying necessary?






Yes, since that's the question

*tongue firmly in cheek

Yes, because that's the issue you've consistently avoided, and the only one anybody gives a shit about. And as usual, you've thrown a load of ambiguous Bible quotes into a post in the hope that nobody notices.

Try again.

 

[Raasyvibe]

Er, no. The first 3 verses directly answer PTCH's question, in how the NT negates the commandments. And then I've answered your question with the most appropriate verses on how the Bible deals with question of divorcing itself from the OT, and the validity of the OT.



There's just no winning with you. You're close minded. No answer ever, for you.









Anyway, gays.....


*starts typing essay*


edit, working progress