Guilty By Association?

[Kathryn]

PMS is a condition that only women can get.
a woman is a mother sister and a daughter
those are the specific labels one can associate with the word woman
and ALL women are daughters.

LOL.

ALL women cannot experience PMS. Some women never experience it whether they are a daughter or not.

For some reason, the image of a hang glider spiraling out of control keeps popping into my head.

 

[vepurusg]

Except you've totally twisted them by implying that those words are Jesus' instructions to His followers.

According to Scripture, Yeshua spoke and instructed largely in parables.
My interpretation is legitimate.

Your opinion that my interpretation is wrong is only your opinion- no more valid than mine.

That is: My interpretation of the parable as commands from Yeshua is as valid, if not more so, than your interpretation.

This is a quote from a parable. The person speaking in the parable is a ruthless king - NOT JESUS, and not meant to symbolize Jesus.

That is only your interpretation, and is not the only interpretation (your interpretation is also not the most reasonable).

Your contention that the King does not represent Yeshua, or YHWH, is highly dubious. It is quite clearly a parable of instruction, not of criticism. Elsewhere parables of a King are also used to represent YHWH (and this reflects consistently ideas in the rest of scripture).

These verses are clearly affirming the nature of YHWH, and condoning old testament commands which still stand:

Matthew 5:17-19
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Yeshua frequently affirmed the continued relevance and mandate of Old Testament law.

His teachings were more along the lines of moderating the demand for their application when those of the same faith seek vengeance against each other.

We don't even have the power or ability to "forgive people who speak blasphemies against the Holy Ghost." That's not an act that is perpetrated on us, so we have nothing to do with forgiving it. And even if we did or didn't "forgive" it - so what - how does that affect anyone whatsoever?

I see why you don't understand the relevance.

The relevance is that Yeshua's teaching of forgiveness, and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", effectively encourage moderation of the old testament laws requiring an eye for an eye, and severe punishments for our crimes against each other (sins against man).

Yeshua frequently affirms that wrongs against man should be forgiven by man as YHWH will in turn forgive those wrongs, but that wrongs against YHWH can not be forgiven;

Luke 12:10
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven.

This confirms that blasphemy is an unforgivable crime, and that the old testament punishments for Blasphemy are still commanded because man is not able to forgive trespass against YHWH as he is able to forgive trespasses against himself.

Leviticus 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.

A blasphemer against the Holy Spirit (YHWH) must be killed. No exceptions. This is divine command, confirmed by the words of Yeshua.

Hey, I don't know what goes on in your head, but it seems pretty easy to me to avoid "blaspheming the Holy Ghost" anyway. I can't even imagine a scenario that would involve doing so.

Based on only immediate context, the most conservative interpretation is that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost involves speaking the truth about the 'miracles' of Yeshua, particularly his acts of casting out demons from people- the fact that he cast them out by the same power that put them there in the first place (evil/deception).

Matthew 12:24-29
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

Yeshua's logic is faulty, and the Pharisees' arguments are legitimate.
Pretending to heal people of evil possession is a pretty good strategy for an evil being who wants to pass itself off as good.

It's pretty easy to blaspheme against the Holy spirit if you're using the powers of critical thinking

The dictate of that action as an unforgivable sin was done to prevent people from considering the possibility (the Achilles' heel of those supposed miracles- the actual truth).


Something similar occurred with Moses:

Exodus 16:8
And Moses said, This shall be, when the LORD shall give you in the evening flesh to eat, and in the morning bread to the full; for that the LORD heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the LORD.

Only this was not within the context of the new concept of forgiveness and leniency that Yeshua was advocating, so it did not need to be mentioned as a special exception.

Considering a broader context, Blasphemy against YHWH/the holy spirit is much easier and more common than all of that; it was just that the Pharisees wouldn't commit those blasphemies (since they were otherwise strictly obedient to the Scripture).

The case of the Sabbath is an interesting one (which could relate to blasphemy/ profaning the holy day), where Yeshua seems more to be arguing against the more strict interpretations (e.g. not even allowed to shuck corn to eat, or save a life), rather than the fact of the law itself.


Matthew 12:1-7
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?


Matthew 12:10-12
And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.


He's saying it doesn't count as the kind of work that is prohibited, to do those kinds of things.

It's not a matter of dismissing the law, but debating interpretation; Christians are still required to keep the Sabbath holy, and not work on that day- and the penalty of DEATH still stands for those who profane the Sabbath because it is a blasphemy against YHWH (Yeshua just clarifies what kinds of things aren't profane on the Sabbath)

 

[Kathryn]

OK. As you said, these things apparently are just your interpretation and carry no more weight than anyone else's.

Your opinion that my interpretation is wrong is only your opinion- no more valid than mine.

That is: My interpretation of the parable as commands from Yeshua is as valid, if not more so, than your interpretation.

If that's your position, you sure did put a lot of work into trying to prove....something...not really sure what.

 

[waitasec]

LOL.

ALL women cannot experience PMS. Some women never experience it whether they are a daughter or not.

For some reason, the image of a hang glider spiraling out of control keeps popping into my head.

that isn't what i said...
all women are daughters

 

[Kathryn]

that isn't what i said...
all women are daughters

And right you are!

But only physically. Some are not daughters emotionally. Some have been disinherited. Some have been abandoned. Some have renounced their family name and their family ties.

Just what is a "real" daughter anyway? Have you got a clear definition? One of my friends adopted a little girl from China - whose daughter is she? What's a mother?

Actually - please don't answer any of this. I can't take much more of this convoluted, nonsensical ridiculousness.

 

[vepurusg]

OK. As you said, these things apparently are just your interpretation and carry no more weight than anyone else's.

Nor does anybody else's definition of 'Follower of Yeshua' carry any more weight than my interpretation (and as I said, probably less if in a scriptural context, since mine is more consistent).

If that's your position, you sure did put a lot of work into trying to prove....something...not really sure what.

That it's not possible to say with any degree of reliability what Yeshua said, or even if he or she ever existed in the first place. It's all a wild guess with no evidence whatsoever, so subject to the whim of imagination and opinion.

What Saul of Tarsus said, on the other hand, is much more clear.

So, by saying 'Follower of Yeshua', you aren't really clarifying matters. Indeed, they become less clear, since 'Christianity' was invented/defined more clearly after the supposed time of Yeshua by latter 'prophets' such as Saul, and other church fathers who interpreted things more extensively (and in whose tradition Catholicism and other forms or Orthodoxy follow, which established fairly thorough cannon with the help of Apologetic philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and others).


I wasn't arguing against you, I was arguing against your argument against me (That is to say, I think your argument against my comment was misplaced, since it wasn't a necessary argument to make based on your position).

I was only arguing against the assertion that what Yeshua was said to have said in Scripture was so straight forward that it has a particular correct interpretation (The only correct interpretation being the interpretation of the poster who asserted that).

If you aren't asserting that there's one correct interpretation and that all others are wrong, then we have nothing to argue about

 

[Marble]

I do not believe in collective guilt.
One is responsible for one's own actions, not for the actions of others.

However, if there were something as collective guilt, it would applicable to all groups.
That is what stupid people who teach that the Jews killed Jesus do not understand:
When the Jews as a collective are burdened with guilt because of the actions of Caiphas then
- all Germans are burdened with guilt because of the actions of Hitler
- all Americans are guilty because of the slaughter of the Native Americans
- all white people are responsible for the enslavement of Africans
- ...
Collective guilt eighter exists or it does not - if one believes it exists, it exists for all groups equally.
But I don't believe in collective guilt.

 

[Kathryn]

N

or does anybody else's definition of 'Follower of Yeshua' carry any more weight than my interpretation (and as I said, probably less if in a scriptural context, since mine is more consistent).

That's just your opinion.

If you aren't asserting that there's one correct interpretation and that all others are wrong, then we have nothing to argue about

There are correct and incorrect interpretations - some are true and some are untrue, and some are a weird mixture of truth and untruth and personal opinions, agendas, etc.

This can be said about any number of documents, laws, religious texts, court cases, etc.

But in regard to the Bible, some passages have more than one correct interpretation and meaning and application.

Or at least, that's my opinion, anyway.

 

[vepurusg]

That's just your opinion.

Oh, no that part was fact.

There are correct and incorrect interpretations - some are true and some are untrue, and some are a weird mixture of truth and untruth and personal opinions, agendas, etc.

There may not be. For example, if the Yeshua character never really existed at all, any interpretation is equally incorrect (because the words were never said to begin with).

There's no way to say either way (no evidence).

If the character existed, and if (by a very long stretch of astronomical improbability) Scripture actually records accurate quotes from said character, then there are two ways diametric ways to look at it:

Either this Yeshua fellow had no idea what he was talking about, and was logically inconsistent himself.

To:

He was familiar with Scripture enough to be consistent, and familiar enough with his own philosophy to not contradict himself.

Probably something in between, but considering those extremes:


In the former case, there's no way to say what the "correct" interpretations of a crazy person's saying are; they're logically inconsistent, so even the mad man's own beliefs aren't correct with themselves.

In the latter case, we can take a "path of least resistance" approach, and formulate sets of internally consistent interpretations with the assumption that the ideas themselves were meant to be/were originally consistent.

In that case, any complete set which is internally consistent is potentially viable- and those which are more consistent with the scripture of the time are more probable (given the assumption that the fellow was familiar with scripture).

If 'follower of Yeshua' is to have any coherent meaning, then only those interpretations which represent internally consistent complete sets which are most consistent with old scripture with which Yeshua is presumed familiar can be considered to have the most weight (which are interpretations such as the one I presented ).

But in regard to the Bible, some passages have more than one correct interpretation and meaning and application.

Only if they were originally intended to be as such; but that is a single interpretation, not multiple ones. Contrasting interpretations are only intended if this Yeshua fellow was insane (which is entirely possible), but then they can not be said to be coherent, or to reflect any correct way of understanding them.

 

[ChristineES]

that is naive.


because when someone says i am a christian
we've got fred phelps on one side of the spectrum and moderates on the other side.



why do people want to associate themselves with anything that isn't definable?

Christianity is definable- it is just defined a lot more broadly than you seem to think. I am not defined by my faith alone- but I am defined by many, many things.
We are not just Christians, we are human beings- all humans are pretty complex. Just because we are Christians doesn't mean we are like an egg in an egg carton, all neat and uniform. The same would go for any person of a religion- any religion.

 

[waitasec]

And right you are!

But only physically. Some are not daughters emotionally. Some have been disinherited. Some have been abandoned. Some have renounced their family name and their family ties.

Just what is a "real" daughter anyway? Have you got a clear definition? One of my friends adopted a little girl from China - whose daughter is she? What's a mother?

Actually - please don't answer any of this. I can't take much more of this convoluted, nonsensical ridiculousness.

whatever.

move all the the goal posts you want.

 

[waitasec]

Christianity is definable- it is just defined a lot more broadly than you seem to think. I am not defined by my faith alone- but I am defined by many, many things.
We are not just Christians, we are human beings- all humans are pretty complex. Just because we are Christians doesn't mean we are like an egg in an egg carton, all neat and uniform. The same would go for any person of a religion- any religion.

i think christianity is as broad as anything can be...
what one christian thinks about
birth control, divorce and same sex marriages doesn't mean another christian will feel the same, i get that.
BUT throughout history these things were not even considered to be questioned.
back then, as a christian, one is to have children, not divorce and homosexuality was off the table and there are christians TODAY that have the same traditional ideas about these things.

so when one says i am a christian what COULD that mean...?
anything.

 

[Kathryn]

whatever.

move all the the goal posts you want.

This comment is so richly ironic.

This is what you said on another thread when a Christian asked you if she should be be mocked and ridiculed because of the actions of some other Christians:

Christine:

Since I never went up to any atheist and said he or she is going to hell and I would never do that, then why should I suffer the consequences?

You:

guilty by association
besides, what consequences have you suffered?
do non believers mock you a lot in the real world?

So - you feel perfectly justified in espousing "guilt by association" when it comes to groups of people. But then you say in another thread that groups of people can't be defined. Oh wait - yes they can - oh, wait - no they can't - I mean some can and some can't -

How can I possibly move your goalposts? WHAT GOALPOSTS? We're not even playing on the same field, or even the same sport apparently.

Here's a shirt that may come in handy:

 

[Kathryn]

i think christianity is as broad as anything can be...
what one christian thinks about
birth control, divorce and same sex marriages doesn't mean another christian will feel the same, i get that.
BUT throughout history these things were not even considered to be questioned.
back then, as a christian, one is to have children, not divorce and homosexuality was off the table and there are christians TODAY that have the same traditional ideas about these things.

so when one says i am a christian what COULD that mean...?
anything.

So - do you believe in guilt by association or not?

 

[ChristineES]

i think christianity is as broad as anything can be...
what one christian thinks about
birth control, divorce and same sex marriages doesn't mean another christian will feel the same, i get that.
BUT throughout history these things were not even considered to be questioned.
back then, as a christian, one is to have children, not divorce and homosexuality was off the table and there are Christians TODAY that have the same traditional ideas about these things.

so when one says i am a christian what COULD that mean...?
anything.

I've been trying to explain that Christianity is about following Jesus' commands. What you mention: Same sex marriage, children out of wedlock, etc. are more of a social agenda. As society started to accept those things, all aspects of society, including religions, began to adapt to these changes.
Also, not every Christian reads the Bible- they don't know what it says. Some people read books like Leviticus and others, and use them in addition to Jesus' commands.

And finally, some Christians don't expect people who are not of their faith to follow the same rules. I don't expect a non-Christian to follow the same kinds rules as I follow along with other Christians. Other Christians want everyone to follow Christian teachings- even those who are not Christians.

 

[waitasec]

I've been trying to explain that Christianity is about following Jesus' commands. What you mention: Same sex marriage, children out of wedlock, etc. are more of a social agenda. As society started to accept those things, all aspects of society, including religions, began to adapt to these changes.
Also, not every Christian reads the Bible- they don't know what it says. Some people read books like Leviticus and others, and use them in addition to Jesus' commands.

And finally, some Christians don't expect people who are not of their faith to follow the same rules. I don't expect a non-Christian to follow the same kinds rules as I follow along with other Christians. Other Christians want everyone to follow Christian teachings- even those who are not Christians.

so when one says "i am a christian", what COULD that mean?
anything...and in that anything you will find the negative and the positive. having that said, the only way to know if one is guilty by association with the negative or the positive, is to observe their behavior.

 

[Kathryn]

so when one says "i am a christian", what COULD that mean?
anything...and in that anything you will find the negative and the positive. having that said, the only way to know if one is guilty by association with the negative or the positive, is to observe their behavior.

Then why did you tell Christine on the other thread that she was guilty by association with other Christians?

 

[vepurusg]

I've been trying to explain that Christianity is about following Jesus' commands.

And I have been explaining that there is no such thing; or if there is, you aren't doing it.

If you would have read my posts here, where I reference scripture (the supposed words of Yeshua):

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...131753-guilty-association-12.html#post2902291

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...131753-guilty-association-15.html#post2902604

You would see what that means- Yeshua also commanded people to proselytize, make war, and kill those who blaspheme.

You can't just pick and choose quotes and say that's the meaning of Christianity- your opinion doesn't define Christianity.

Either you take all of what Yeshua is said to have said, or you have to admit that Christianity has no real meaning (not "following Yeshua" as if that were meaningful) and is entirely up to the opinion of each person practicing it- wherein those who kill homosexuals and ignore the commandments about forgiveness have an opinion that is just as valid as yours, if not more so.

By that definition, you are not a Christian if you don't kill blasphemers as commanded by Yeshua, and if you don't cause conflict with any who do not worship your deity and aggressively proselytize.

Some people read books like Leviticus and others, and use them in addition to Jesus' commands.

Yeshua commands that those books still be followed; following Yeshua's commands (all of them) is to also follow those books.

You can't pick and choose which ones you follow and pretend it's objective.

Other Christians want everyone to follow Christian teachings- even those who are not Christians.

No, more accurately, by the very definition you are asserting, "Real Christians" expect that, because that is what Yeshua commanded. Those who do not can not be called Christians (unless one admits that the term is meaningless and can be applied to anything with any meaning at whim).

 

[waitasec]

Then why did you tell Christine on the other thread that she was guilty by association with other Christians?

this was the context...

but where did it start?
it's the atheists that have been subjected by this supposed christian nation, right?

What atheists have gone through in the past isn't about me. Since I never went up to any atheist and said he or she is going to hell and I would never do that, then why should I suffer the consequences?

guilty by association



it seems as though some christians are completely unaware of the consequences, punishments and ridicule non believing 'sinners' face every day from living in a 'christian' society.

 

[Kathryn]

this was the context...




guilty by association



it seems as though some christians are completely unaware of the consequences, punishments and ridicule non believing 'sinners' face every day from living in a 'christian' society.

You're still straddling the fence. You can't have it both ways. You can't conclude that people are guilty by association and then in the next sentence claim that categorizing people is impossible.