Liberal Christianity - how far can you push it?

[not nom]

We cannot stone adulterers unless we have a fully autonomous Sanhedrin like in the Islamic countries that do it, meanwhile you can still avoid adultery. The traditional concept is that all the death penalties will be applied providentially when not living in the Holy Land under an independent autonomous Sanhedrin, which means adulterers will fall to disease, murders (many are killed by jealous husbands for example), falling during rock climbing, falling pianos/flower pots, etc.

heh :/

I guess I should first ask if that bit is also added later... you know, the bit about lusting after someone else being the same as adultery. (oh, and hate being the same as murder -- well, not the same, but you know what I am referring to, right?). that would always have the punished providentially, too.

anyway, that and other stuff, that makes a lot of death penalties... who really believes that -- about themselves and people they love, I mean?

What Jesus said about Eye for an eye was not to do away with it but to not apply it where it doesn't belong or to overdo it. You can still forgive someone after hurting them back equally, but this would also only apply under an autonomous Sanhedrin. There's a difference between "forgiving" and "abolishing the punishment". Forgiveness does not equate automatically to "relinquishing the punishment".

what's the point of forgiving someone after you killed them, other than adding condescension to injury?

 

[SCHIZO]

The story of the adulteress is a fake addition called the "Pericope Adulterae" that only appears in later manuscripts. We cannot stone adulterers unless we have a fully autonomous Sanhedrin like in the Islamic countries that do it, meanwhile you can still avoid adultery. The traditional concept is that all the death penalties will be applied providentially when not living in the Holy Land under an independent autonomous Sanhedrin, which means adulterers will fall to disease, murders (many are killed by jealous husbands for example), falling during rock climbing, falling pianos/flower pots, etc.

What Jesus said about Eye for an eye was not to do away with it but to not apply it where it doesn't belong or to overdo it. You can still forgive someone after hurting them back equally, but this would also only apply under an autonomous Sanhedrin. There's a difference between "forgiving" and "abolishing the punishment". Forgiveness does not equate automatically to "relinquishing the punishment".

I take it you're a murderer at heart? Murderous faith has no place on earth and you're faith will be oppressed by the justice of this nation. And there is nothing you can do about it now or forever.

 

[Shermana]

I take it you're a murderer at heart? Murderous faith has no place on earth and you're faith will be oppressed by the justice of this nation. And there is nothing you can do about it now or forever.

So you're saying every religious Jew on earth has murderous faith? You'll have to explain how you draw this conclusion to me personally from what I posted. Try to take what Jesus says into context, if you hate your brother.

Many people believe the falsity that "your brother" applies to everyone else to begin with.

We are already commanded not to hate our brothers in Leviticus 19:17.

What do you mean by "The Justice of this nation" exactly? Did you not read what I said about the death penalty only applying under an independent autonomous Sanhedrin in the Holy Land and how otherwise the penalty comes from Providential means? I think you didn't. And I think you're calling all forms of religious Judaism a "murderous faith". I can just as easily call your Gnosticism an "adulterous/lecherous faith".

 

[not nom]

Did you not read what I said about the death penalty only applying under an independent autonomous Sanhedrin in the Holy Land and how otherwise the penalty comes from Providential means?

do you know what "at heart" means? and how does there not being that court anymore/not yet, or providential means change anything? that just makes it cleaner, more removed. "someone elses problem". doesn't change anything about killing someone for a misstep.

not that is entirely unheard of with god. it just seems crude these days.. and if that was law, I would never marry. I wouldn't want to get someone killed because they sleep with someone else, or even just look at them.

And I think you're calling all forms of religious Judaism a "murderous faith".

he didn't say "faiths", but "faith"... a small detail that makes a whole lot of difference.

I think you're going for that card to distract from how callous this comes across. why not call a spade a spade, right?

do YOU believe in this? that it would be desirable to have that sanhedrin which pronounces such judgements? if so, do people who know you know that you think there should be a death penalty on adultery? how do they react? I would get goosebumps, I have to be honest. and not the good kind. and not because I'm an adulterer, I always was the one cheated on. but there's the lust for revenge, and there's being completely heartless. if I was that heartless, how could I even love?

I'm not saying that's murderous. I'm saying relationships formed in such a context are meaningless and never existed. if you would have someone killed because they cheated on you, you never loved them to begin with, and at least they got to be with someone who was worth their love before they died. that's how I see it. bollocks to all that. it's okay for the time it's from, but it seems rather monstrous today.

let's not even get into homosexuality or what else one could find there. enjoy living in a world where random accidents are punishment for who knows what :/

 

[not nom]

Many people believe the falsity that "your brother" applies to everyone else to begin with.

randomly clicked around a bit: Grand Sanhedrin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5. "That every Israelite is religiously bound to consider his non-Jewish fellow citizens as brothers, and to aid, protect, and love them as though they were coreligionists;"

has there been a new memo in the meantime, or was that a lie/mistake?

and if you say doesn't mean everyone, then whom does it apply to?

 

[Shermana]

do you know what "at heart" means?

No, I have no idea what "at heart" means. Could it mean "in your mind and perception and feelings' perhaps? Surely Jesus saying something about you being in danger of hellfire for merely calling someone a fool should enter the equation. Notice that Jesus says the danger is of hell, not of physical execution. Thus, it can be argued that the crimes of adultery and murder in one's heart is punished through spiritual means.

and how does there not being that court anymore/not yet, or providential means change anything? that just makes it cleaner, more removed. "someone elses problem". doesn't change anything about killing someone for a misstep.

It's as simple as G-d doing the punishing directly instead of man doing it.

not that is entirely unheard of with god. it just seems crude these days.. and if that was law, I would never marry. I wouldn't want to get someone killed because they sleep with someone else, or even just look at them.

Yes, it seems crude "these days". If you're worried about having a cheating heart, you should not marry. Jesus said that its better to become a Eunuch than divorce (though there is more to it than just that).

he didn't say "faiths", but "faith"... a small detail that makes a whole lot of difference.

Explain the exact difference in this "small detail".

I think you're going for that card to distract from how callous this comes across. why not call a spade a spade, right?

Explain what you mean, I'm not trying for any card, I'm the one who got told I have "murderous faith."

do YOU believe in this? that it would be desirable to have that sanhedrin which pronounces such judgements?

Yes, and I'm not exactly the only one. It's actually PRACTICED for realz in many muslim countries. And in India. And in African tribal communities. Adultery has been condemned by death in numerous pagan societies, if not almost all historically.

if so, do people who know you know that you think there should be a death penalty on adultery?

Not many. But a few.

how do they react?

In agreement. The ones who don't agree I couldn't care much less about their opinions.

I would get goosebumps, I have to be honest.

Some people can't handle the truth.

and not the good kind. and not because I'm an adulterer, I always was the one cheated on. but there's the lust for revenge, and there's being completely heartless. if I was that heartless, how could I even love?

What do you mean by "heartless"? How subjective. I'm sorry that you got with cheating dirtbags, even if you may or may not have been part of the problem which drove them to cheat or not, it is still their sin and not yours, you'd have a right to be angry.

I'm not saying that's murderous . I'm saying relationships formed in such a context are meaningless and never existed.

I don't understand what you mean.

if you would have someone killed because they cheated on you, you never loved them to begin with,

In your opinion.

and at least they got to be with someone who was worth their love before they died. that's how I see it.

And that is how YOU see it.

bollocks to all that. it's okay for the time it's from, but it seems rather monstrous today.

Seems. Today.

let's not even get into homosexuality or what else one could find there. enjoy living in a world where random accidents are punishment for who knows what :

"Who knows what" is clearly defined in the text. (And female homo-relations are not condemned). If you don't like how fate and Karma works, that's not my problem. Do you think my Holy Book is the only one that says this is what happens?

 

[Shermana]

randomly clicked around a bit: Grand Sanhedrin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



has there been a new memo in the meantime, or was that a lie/mistake?

and if you say doesn't mean everyone, then whom does it apply to?

Lie/mistake. Find me a Jew who considers a fanatic Jihadist who wants to slit their throats a brother. The Rabbinical writings are filled with all kinds of feel-good gentile-friendly rhetoric that doesn't stand up to the test.

 

[not nom]

Lie/mistake. Find me a Jew who considers a fanatic Jihadist who wants to slit their throats a brother.

how about a jew who wants to slit the throat of another jew?

how about a non-jew who has no beef with jews?

I don't see why "gentile" has to mean "rabid gentile", and why "brother" has to mean "non-rabid brother".

 

[Shermana]

how about a jew who wants to slit the throat of another jew?

Assuming its not for an executable reason like murder and adultery, that would be a murderous heart.

how about a non-jew who has no beef with jews?

What about them?

I don't see why "gentile" has to mean "rabid gentile", and why "brother" has to mean "non-rabid brother".

I don't see where your contention is.

 

[not nom]

If you're worried about having a cheating heart, you should not marry.

that is exactly the opposite of my concern, but thanks for trying.

Explain the exact difference in this "small detail".

"murderous faith" is a statement about an individuum. faiths means what you said, "forms of religion", it's a category. it's like water means the element, and waters may mean a set of ponds, rivers and/or oceans. english isn't my first language but that strikes me as rather obvious.

as harsh as it is, calling you murderer at heart, as long as you don't presume to be identical even with jews who have a different religious outlook than you, doesn't say anything about all forms of religious judaism.

Explain what you mean, I'm not trying for any card, I'm the one who got told I have "murderous faith."

yeah, but you're also the one who said that's making a statement about all forms (!) of religious judaism. while leaving out that murderous faith can just as well apply to christianity or islam.

Yes, and I'm not exactly the only one. It's actually PRACTICED for realz in many muslim countries. And in India. And in African tribal communities. Adultery has been condemned by death in numerous pagan societies, if not almost all historically.

I know. don't think I'm singling anything out, lol. but I'll just say, wow, good luck with all that.

In agreement. The ones who don't agree I couldn't care much less about their opinions.

oh don't worry, I'm sure that goes both ways.

Some people can't handle the truth.

LOL! I can't stand to be around potential killers that's all. I once knew a guy when I was 15. we weren't even friends, we just were both at that age in a small town. when I was 20 or so, I heard gossip he was involved in a murder robbery. I thought that I had shaken the hand of that dude, and it made me sick for a second. I'm not saying that's the same, I'm talking about a cerebral response here.

now, you think that's different, because you think that's doing justice. but I disagree. lawful, shmawful. awful, actually.

What do you mean by "heartless"? How subjective.

so are goosebumps. your point? it's hard to quantify. but it's there. so?

I'm sorry that you got with cheating dirtbags, even if you may or may not have been part of the problem which drove them to cheat or not,

the problem was simply that I was monogamous, and they weren't. not that they told me before hand, of course. not that they didn't blame ME for being monogamous, of course. but I appreciate your need for a backdoor, think whatever you want.

it is still their sin and not yours, you'd have a right to be angry.

thank you, and I would make PLENTY of use of that. (I wrote songs myself ) but I don't want the "right" to have them killed. and I certainly wouldn't want to have the obligation to snitch on them.

I don't understand what you mean.

I'm trying to be polemic. love codified is not love. as if you're don't love them because you love them, but because the powers that be ordained you to love your spouse and be faithful, and when the law dictates kill and forgive, then do that.

Seems. Today.

ohh, it was all better back then. and yes, it seems monstrous. that's all anything can do, unless you're the thing itself, duh. I have no idea how it feels.

"Who knows what" is clearly defined in the text. (And female homo-relations are not condemned). If you don't like how fate and Karma works, that's not my problem.

well, does it. there's plenty of claims and experiences regarding that.

Do you think my Holy Book is the only one that says this is what happens?

err, no? and again, that's another "law" I have no problems with. I mean, being afraid I get stoned or otherwise punished. but I see nothing in homosexual men that would make me wish death on them. I would not sit in that court and order a stoning, so I could not be part of anything under the jurisdiction of that court, and so I also can't believe god does that by providential means "in the meantime". or maybe he does, but then he can do whatever he wants, to me or anyone, I say bollocks to that. if it smells of man, has the handwriting of man, and furthers the goals of man, it's of man. yeah, that's subjective, so what. if god is a nazi I'm screwed anyway, I might as well diss him while I have breath. and if god isn't all that, he knows he's not meant

 

[Shermana]

All I can say is, you're totally welcome to your opinion of how things should be.

 

[not nom]

Assuming its not for an executable reason like murder and adultery, that would be a murderous heart.

oh, and one shouldn't love those? they don't qualify as brothers anymore? so the second someone hates you, you totally make sure you hate them back, and that accomplishes world wide peace in some convoluted way? nahh...

What about them?

why bring up a antisemitic fanatic as example for a gentile?

I don't see where your contention is.

see above..

and do you think loving someone means not defending yourself? well no, at least not how I understand the word... so yes, even though in practice jews may not love those who want to slit their throats, maybe they are actually called to do so. it doesn't mean love what they do, or spend time "loving them", but when you encounter them, love them, you know? if you can defend yourself with judo, do not grab for the gun first. that is what I mean, not "stand there and hug them while they beat you to death". and when you defended yourself, forgive them...?

I know that's a tall order, I can't even do that to people who annoy me, or to anyone when I'm hungry. so I won't tell people in the middle east what to do. but I think what people can do on average, or yet, and the ideals of religion(s), are separate.

you said brother refers not to everybody -- so who does it positively refer to?

 

[Shermana]

It refers to people in the same belief and community. A Jew who wants to kill another Jew is more of a "brother" than a Jihadist who wants to kill Jews, and the Jew is probably even more guilty in Heaven's eyes. You for example are not my "brother", neither is any gentile Christian friend of mine who doesn't believe in Torah, this does not mean I wish ill on you or them, it only means you and them are not classed as "my brother".

Why would you think I would say loving someone means not defending yourself from them? Do you know what "love" actually means? I would not think twice about using force to disarm a person who I am supposed to love if I am in direct threat, I think you're going to extreme stretches now in your attempt to say "Torah is bad".

Also, forgiveness is supposed to come when the other side is sincerely sorry. Forgiving someone who is not sorry is not how it works.

 

[not nom]

All I can say is, you're totally welcome to your opinion of how things should be.

why would I need your permission for that?

and pointing, for example, how you tried to equate a statement about you with one about all forms about religious judaism, isn't wishful thinking. you just pick that bit out -- that I wish people were a lot less callous and, well, bootlickerish -- and put it ALL under that label to dismiss even that where that label doesn't apply. feel free, you're totally welcome to forfeit.

 

[Shermana]

why would I need your permission for that?

and pointing, for example, how you tried to equate a statement about you with one about all forms about religious judaism, isn't wishful thinking. you just pick that bit out -- that I wish people were a lot less callous and, well, bootlickerish -- and put it ALL under that label to dismiss even that where that label doesn't apply. feel free, you're totally welcome to forfeit.

You'll have to explain how you got that I was saying you need my permission to have your own belief. What part did I 'pick out' that wasn't brought up first?

Bootlickerish? You're taking this to a personal and insulting level now. "Welcome to forfeit"? I won't forfeit, it looks like you're trying to get me to go against my beliefs in a matter of personal opinion. Quite honestly, your posts are getting rude, if not towards "fighting". All you're doing is trying to say "
Your belief is bad, mmmkay".

 

[not nom]

It refers to people in the same belief and community. A Jew who wants to kill another Jew is more of a "brother" than a Jihadist who wants to kill Jews, and the Jew is probably even more guilty in Heaven's eyes.

"brother" is a binary word. you're either a brother, or not.

(not to mention that it doesn't include women but let's not get into that haha)

Why would you think I would say loving someone means not defending yourself from them? Do you know what "love" actually means? I would not think twice about using force to disarm a person who I am supposed to love

and if that's only brothers, and brothers is a relative term, then who ARE you supposed to love?

I think you're going to extreme stretches now in your attempt to say "Torah is bad".

yeah. after you dismissed my that big post with such a cheap little line. in that post was also contained that I'm certainly not just talking about judaism, actually not at all. what I'm talking about applies to many religions, and I refer to those where it applies. this thread is about christianity, after all. and you said, people have to keep that law. so I asked about the torah, or rather your beliefs I guess.

I think you're being a bit transparent in your attempts to detract with such stuff. I'm not saying torah is bad, I'm saying fundamentalists, and coldblooded killers, are bad. I guess you wouldn't expect to ever have to carry out such a sentence, so you have it nice and easy. but don't try to play the victim while basically in theory being for putting homosexuals to death, for example. seems kinda sociopathic.

 

[Shermana]

]"brother" is a binary word. you're either a brother, or not.

And you for example, are not my brother.

(not to mention that it doesn't include women but let's not get into that haha)

It can be applied as "sister".

and if that's only brothers, and brothers is a relative term, then who ARE you supposed to love?

You skipped my question about what exactly "love means".

yeah. after you dismissed my that big post with such a cheap little line.

What was there to actually respond to?

in that post was also contained that I'm certainly not just talking about judaism, actually not at all.

Yeah I got that. But the subject in question is Liberal Christianity and thus the Torah.

what I'm talking about applies to many religions, and I refer to those where it applies.

But this thread is about the Bible, and your "contentions" are on the Bible.

this thread is about christianity, after all. and you said, people have to keep that law.

Yes, it's about Christianity, and Christ taught to teach the Law. You just don't like what I am saying and think your opinion about "god being a nazi" counts as fact.

so I asked about the torah, or rather your beliefs I guess.

My belief about the Torah may be unique in some respects but its mostly the same as how nearly all religious Jews understand it.

I think you're being a bit transparent in your attempts to detract with such stuff.

I think you're being transparent in your attempt to try to call the Jewish god a "nazi", and I think I'm answering whatever needs to be answered, you just don't like the answers.

I'm not saying torah is bad, I'm saying fundamentalists, and coldblooded killers, are bad

I am a "Fundamentalist" in how the word is used (away from its original meaning which applied only to a Christian movement), are you grouping me together with "cold-blooded killers" because I agree that Providence will eliminate such offenders or that the Sanhedrin should have a right to execute whom is commanded under an autonomous government?

.

I guess you wouldn't expect to ever have to carry out such a sentence, so you have it nice and easy

Maybe I will one day in the future under an autonomous independent Sanhedrin in the Holy Land.

. but don't try to play the victim while basically in theory being for putting homosexuals to death, for example. seems kinda sociopathic.

Calling me sociopathic is fighting words. I have a right to believe what I do. Does that mean I'm going to go kill people on my own initiative? No. Even Atheist regimes like the USSR and Cuba believed in eliminating the homosexual populations, now what?

 

[not nom]

You'll have to explain how you got that I was saying you need my permission to have your own belief. What part did I 'pick out' that wasn't brought up first?

in my post, I talked about how stuff gives me goosebumps. that's how I want the world to be, blah di blah.

but it also had factoids like "a statement about you, while uncalled for, does not equal a statement about all religious forms of judaism".

this and other parts do not constitute an opinion, they're arguments. you picked out the opinion part of my post and called it all an opinion. that's what I meant, and I just said that to one up you. I find it condescending to say "you're entitled to your opinion". that doesn't require stating.

"Welcome to forfeit"? I won't forfeit

you already DID when you dismissed the complete post with one sentence which doesn't even apply to a third of it. if you dismiss something with a flawed argument, it's as if you haven't responded to it. that's not "forfeit", but that's what I meant.

it looks like you're trying to get me to go against my beliefs in a matter of personal opinion.

YOURS? what makes you think I'm not trying to figure out what and who my god is, much less the god of everything?

Quite honestly, your posts are getting rude, if not towards "fighting". All you're doing is trying to say "Your belief is bad, mmmkay".

when mention about how I think the world should be (just to dismiss the whole post), then THAT is what comes to mind. that's not about your belief, that's generally about belief.

why follow god? because he is powerful. why is something just? because god said so. who do we love? those who love god. who do we hate? those who hate god. up to putting people to death over it. because god is the strong man in the sky.

I'm sorry, but that's bootlickerish, and if you find that rude, then that's just you trying real hard to take that personal. or maybe it hits home, what do I know.

what euphemism would you prefer? docile? stockholm syndrome? if you expect me to call it "strict", or "not liberal", or anything else that doesn't do the truth justice, then no dice.

but yes, it's a rude statement about a lot of religious beliefs, in general. so what. licked boots do so much damage, a little bit of offense, what is that even.

 

[not nom]

I'm sorry but I reeeally have to go now, it's late. I'll respond to that other post tomorrow. if I ****** you off, remember that I don't actually know you. and of course I am projecting things on you which I would want to ask/tell a lot of people, you know? I never spoken with anyone who would in theory be for stoning "etc.". maybe I should have been less rude because well, not because I have manners but because I'd actually like to know why and how. "winning" against you would mean nothing and gain nothing for nobody. maybe we can try again and I can be less full of it or something.. thanks either way.

 

[Shermana]

in my post, I talked about how stuff gives me goosebumps. that's how I want the world to be, blah di blah.

I fail to see anything in that post that counts as a cohesive argument. WHy don't you quote which parts you think are worth a response?

but it also had factoids like "a statement about you, while uncalled for, does not equal a statement about all religious forms of judaism".

Pretty much most religious Jews (and I exclude Reform) believe that the Death penalty will providentially apply to such offenders.

this and other parts do not constitute an opinion, they're arguments. you picked out the opinion part of my post and called it all an opinion. that's what I meant, and I just said that to one up you. I find it condescending to say "you're entitled to your opinion". that doesn't require stating.

I fail to see how they are arguments and not opinions. Quote which parts you want a response to that you feel are real arguments and not opinions.

you already DID when you dismissed the complete post with one sentence which doesn't even apply to a third of it. if you dismiss something with a flawed argument, it's as if you haven't responded to it. that's not "forfeit", but that's what I meant.

There's nothing really to respond to other than saying that you're welcome to your opinion. Please feel free to quote which parts you think are actual arguments, the part about our god being a nazi?

YOURS? what makes you think I'm not trying to figure out what and who my god is, much less the god of everything?

Are you truly trying to figure it out or are you trying to figure out a concept that seems palatible to you?

when mention about how I think the world should be (just to dismiss the whole post), then THAT is what comes to mind. that's not about your belief, that's generally about belief.

Again, quote which part of your post is an actual argument.

why follow god? because he is powerful. why is something just? because god said so. who do we love? those who love god. who do we hate? those who hate god. up to putting people to death over it. because god is the strong man in the sky.

That's called an opinion, not an argument. I don't even love all those who claim to "love" my god, because they don't actually do what it says to show love to him. He IS the strong man in the sky, and the way we view him is in the Text, is there a problem?

I'm sorry, but that's bootlickerish, and if you find that rude, then that's just you trying real hard to take that personal. or maybe it hits home, what do I know.

I agree with what the text says, and you're trying to paint me as Sociopathic and bootlickering for agreeing with the logic of the belief. It's a matter of opinion, and you just simply can't stand my opinion.

what euphemism would you prefer? docile? stockholm syndrome? if you expect me to call it "strict", or "not liberal", or anything else that doesn't do the truth justice, then no dice.

You are seriously going out of your way to be insulting. Maybe I should call you a few things. Is this what you consider an argument? I agree with what the text says, maybe that's why I was born Jewish. You are trying to paint me in the same picture as "cold-blooded killer" for my beliefs and then saying I have "Stockholm syndrome". The idea that someone might just agree with these principles must be terribly offensive to you.

but yes, it's a rude statement about a lot of religious beliefs, in general. so what. licked boots do so much damage, a little bit of offense, what is that even.

I'm glad you admit you're being rude, hopefully you will learn the difference between an argument and an opinion. Also maybe you'll learn that agreeing with the logic of a belief is not "licking boots".