Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

olePigeon · Jul 18, 2010, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Christian theology makes their conception of the deity an adulterer and their mangod a mamzer - a bastard born without a valid marital relationship.

The Jewish and Islamic portrait of God is a murdering, sadist, sexist, racist, sociopath. I find it ironic that the more extreme Muslims are the only ones still abiding by God's word to the letter, yet people call them barbarians and murderers (and rightfully so.)

To everyone else, God's word apparently only matters when it's socially and politically acceptable.

olePigeon · Jul 18, 2010, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

And when you are done please make me a sandwich.

... Somebody forgot the magic word.

Sudo?

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You are the elect BigMac; you and your faithful Jewish brethren. Those teaching otherwise are too often bent on something other than Scriptural integrity and adherents to these ideals are not diligent students

I would ask you to consider this question, ebuddy:

Why would God create all manner of peoples (Europeans, Africans, Australian Aboriginals, Arabs, Maori, Injuns, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols) and then choose one nation as His favourite? And why then, having chosen one nation as His favourite, would He promise them a shitty bit of desert in the middle of a bunch of warring tribes? Surely, as omnipotent creator of the Universe, He'd have given His favourite people somewhere a little nicer and a lot more inaccessible to those who war against them? Like, say, New Zealand.

So what we have here, if we are to believe the OT, is a racist God who chooses a favourite from amongst all of the people He made who then decides to promise them a shitty dustbowl to live in. Doesn't make any sense, does it?

Now, my God, the one who sent His Son to die on a cross, ain't a racist dick. Of that I'm 100% sure. So which deity is coming out with all this "chosen people" crap? Not mine.

And again, same thing I said to Biggie I'll say to you. If you want to know the truth, put the books aside, get on your knees and ask for it.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

The Jewish and Islamic portrait of God is a murdering, sadist, sexist, racist, sociopath. I find it ironic that the more extreme Muslims are the only ones still abiding by God's word to the letter, yet people call them barbarians and murderers (and rightfully so.)

To everyone else, God's word apparently only matters when it's socially and politically acceptable.

Here's God's first and final words on the matter:

1) Love God.
2) Be excellent to each other.

That's it. Everything else is culturally-tainted man-made politics.

Big Mac · 03:53 PM

I don't have the time right now to respond to the two recent posts by Chongo and ebuddy, but I'll try to do so later on today. I thank both of you very much for continuing the conversation, however.

I have a question I would like to pose to you and any other Christian who wants to weigh in, however: If death is as a result of sin, and given that your theology asserts Jesus' death provided a universal, comprehensive atonement for all sin including Adam and Chava's first sin in the Garden, why has death continued to grip the world for 2000+ years since the advent of Jesus? Why do all living things still get born into this world only to die? Why didn't we see a perfected existence the minute Jesus' alleged permanent vicarious atonement through self-sacrifice occurred?

This is a question that I think demands an honest answer. But strangely enough, I don't see too many people even asking this question. If one wishes to proclaim the truth of Christian doctrine, why is death still a part of life? Where is the promised imminent kingdom of Heaven after two millennia? The first response to this question that may come to mind for a Christian is that the world is awaiting the Second Coming. But in fact that does not make any sense at all. If a Christian wants to argue that a perfect atonement resulted from Jesus' blood offering of himself, then consequently that act should have eliminated all death henceforth. But the world wasn't transformed into an Edenic paradise after the time of Jesus. In fact, the opposite happened - the world was mired in considerable darkness for a very, very long time, and it's still a dark and evil place in many areas today.

A related point that Jews make in response to Christians is that the prophecies about Mashiach in the Hebrew Scriptures can all be tested and verified objectively in the real world. If you don't see a righteous descendant of David leading Israel, bringing all Jews back to Torah, repairing any breaches in our divine service, leading all of us exiles back to our Land, victoriously fighting our wars, ushering in world peace, bringing about universal knowledge of G-d and restoring the Beit HaMikdash, then you know for an absolute fact that Mashiach has not yet come. Yet, due to the fact that Christians can claim Jesus accomplished none of those things, Christians must resort to making claims about Jesus that cannot possibly be objectively verified in the real world. They have to claim that he was a perfect sacrifice. How can anyone possibly prove that? They have to claim he was actually an incarnated form of the deity, but as I've shown Christianity gets itself into a ton of trouble with that claim. They have to claim that as a result of his sacrifice all people have been forgiven of all their sins for all of eternity. How can anyone possibly prove that? Whereas in reality I can prove conclusively that his sacrifice had no effect on the sins of humanity at all - I just did so above. Again, if it were true that Jesus atoned for all sins for all time, then right after his death there should logically have been no more death of any animal or person forevermore and a perfect existence ushered in in this physical world. But that obviously did not happen, so therefore logic dictates that his alleged sacrifice had no effect on sin whatsoever.

The only claim Christians are left with is that Jesus' sacrifice did in fact atone for all sins for all time but that this has been hidden from the world. And Christians must further assert that while it certainly appears that humans continue to die, those who accept Jesus don't die in fact, it just appears that they do when they expire in this world and are buried. In truth, Christians must assert, they are at all times alive and forgiven of all their sins (no matter how heinous), and that death in the world post-Jesus is imaginary, even though it appears that humans die just as they have died ever since we were booted from the Garden. How very odd.

In truth, no matter how much Christians want to claim otherwise, the Jesus they believe in - if he existed historically at all - was neither prophet, nor messiah, nor savior, nor deity. If he had been a prophet his alleged positive prophecies of returning soon (within the normal lives of his initial followers) to usher in the eternal kingdom would have come true thousands of years ago but did not - if he spoke such words at all he spoke presumptuously what G-d did not tell him to speak and thus committed a capital offense under the Torah. If he had been the Messiah all the true prophecies pertaining to the Messiah would have come to pass thousands of years ago but they did not. If he had been the comprehensive savior and atonment-maker Christians believe him to be, disease and death in this world would have been forever ended thousands of years ago, but those forces continue to harm humanity. And if he had been a deity according to the traits of the G-d of the Hebrew Scriptures, no mortal would have been able to look at him and live, no power in heaven or on earth would have been able to stand against him, he would have had unlimited knowledge and power, he would not have preached against G-d's Torah, etc., but the Jesus Christians know had none of those G-dly traits.

I just got to see the two posts Doofy wrote most recently above. It makes sense for him to hold to the type of Christianity he holds to. He sees that the Hebrew Scriptures are not compatible with what he believes, so he chooses to throw out the Hebrew Scriptures completely in favor of only the Christian Greek scriptures. Doofy therefore doesn't have to contend with all the enormous problems of trying to make the Hebrew and the Greek canons compatible. Doofy calls my conception of G-d a racist dick; he clearly holds very strong animus toward the Hebrew Scriptures. And that's okay; that's his right. He's a Christian apparently in the model of Marcion rather than Augustine or Aquinas (my personal favorite Christian theologian). But Doofy, the problem with all that is, even if you reject my canon and my G-d you still have to explain why your conception of G-d and your conception of his "son" don't harmonize with the facts of existence. Even if you ignore my scriptures, you can't explain why Jesus' supposed perfect sacrifice has not over the last 2,000 years saved any person from mortality. Why there's still sin, death and disease. Why there still isn't yet Jesus' divine kingdom on earth. You can't answer those questions, can you?

The Final Dakar · Jul 18, 2010, 03:40 PM

I thought Jesus' sacrifice relaxed the rules for getting to heaven. i.e., look at all the bullshit you have to go through to get into heaven vs. Christians, Big Mac.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I thought Jesus' sacrifice relaxed the rules for getting to heaven. i.e., look at all the bullshit you have to go through to get into heaven vs. Christians, Big Mac.

And then ask yourself whether a loving God would make it easy or hard for His creation to get into Heaven.

You're wearing polycotton! No heaven for you!

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Christians must resort to making claims about Jesus that cannot possibly be objectively verified in the real world.

Here's the week's task for you Biggie: Without reference to your self-referencing library, objectively verify in the real world that God even exists at all.

Big Mac · 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar

I thought Jesus' sacrifice relaxed the rules for getting to heaven. i.e., look at all the bullshit you have to go through to get into heaven vs. Christians, Big Mac.

That's what Christians may claim, but if they want to claim that Jesus' supposed sacrifice cleared away all sins forever, then people literally should not have experienced earthly death since that time. Based on that assumption Christians (who believed their belief in Jesus saves them) most of all should have been spared it and continued living on and on their earthly lives without suffering from disease and death. The fact that they don't is 100% proof that Jesus did not save them from sin.

And when you mockingly say, "look at all the BS you have to go through to get into heaven vs. Christians, Big Mac," you misunderstand the point completely. We were given the Torah and the mitzvot (commandments) to make all aspects of our daily lives holy, to live according to G-d's full law and bring ourselves very close to Him by obeying His blueprint for our existences on earth. By following His Torah we gain divine merit, and where we fall short we have various methods of atonement. But nowhere does G-d say that if we fail in our observance we aren't going to Heaven. In fact, the Hebrew Scriptures only makes a limited number of veiled general references to the afterlife, and also a limited number of references to the resurrection of the dead. The afterlife may be of paramount concern to Christians, but the Torah is most concerned with conduct in this world, leaving up to G-d the details of other worldly existences.

The Talmud teaches that there are a number of Torah observances that guarantee life after this one for Jews, and in truth they're not difficult at all to accomplish. It is taught that one who merely partakes in Torah learning is guaranteed eternal life. It is taught that one who benefits Torah scholars in specific ways (such as by giving a portion of money or property after death) merits eternal life. It is taught that one who puts on Tefillin even once merits eternal life. It is even taught that one who walks a specific amount of distance in the land of Israel merits eternal life. it is also taught that we merit eternal life because at the very least nearly all Jews still maintain the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision. And that is by no means an exhaustive list. So, contrary to your Christian induced assumption, it is not hard according to Judaism for Jews to guarantee for ourselves life beyond this earth. We therefore focus on our earthly conduct and conformity to the Torah, and we let G-d take care of the other worldly details, with the knowledge that eternal life is very easily obtained for those faithful to Him.

Originally Posted by Doofy

And then ask yourself whether a loving God would make it easy or hard for His creation to get into Heaven.

Can you point me to the chapter and verse of the Hebrew Scriptures where it says what the qualifications are to get into Heaven? There is no such passage.

You're wearing polycotton! No heaven for you!

I know you like to poke fun at that commandment, Doofy. Mock G-d all you wish. But He never said that wearing mixed cotton non-cotton fibers has an effect on a Jew's portion in the afterlife. Again, please point me to one chapter and verse of the Hebrew Scriptures where G-d declares a person will not go to Heaven for breaking a commandment - you won't find it. At most you can point to passages where certain acts get one the death penalty, but that doesn't necessarily mean being cut off from the afterlife. You can also find where G-d calls certain actions corruptions, and that includes worshiping forms and equating them with Him (as you absolutely do, Doofy, but at least you aren't doing it as a Jew).

Originally Posted by Doofy

Here's the week's task for you Biggie: Without reference to your self-referencing library, objectively verify in the real world that God even exists at all.

We both believe with certainty that He does exist - don't you? I believe that every single breath I take, everything that occurs in my life, the continued existence of my people, all of nature and all of creation testifies to His existence. The difference I was pointing out is that you believe in a Messiah who you believe came 2,000 years ago and whose purported comprehensive salvation from sin cannot be objectively verified, while I believe in King Mashiach who is destined to come and whose existence will be attested to by objective, incontrovertible facts in the world when it occurs.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I know you like to poke fun at that commandment, Doofy.

Ooops - I must have forgotten that I do that with that "commandment". You'll have to reference a previous post where I've done that so I can remember.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Mock G-d all you wish.

I'm not mocking God. I'm mocking your silly tribal politics which your ancestors disguised as "G-d's will".

Originally Posted by Big Mac

But He never said that wearing mixed cotton non-cotton fibers has an effect on a Jew's portion in the afterlife. Again, please point me to one chapter and verse of the Hebrew Scriptures where G-d declares a person will not go to Heaven for breaking a commandment - you won't find it.

OK, so... ...if the commandment has nothing to do with getting into Heaven, then it must be a political law rather than a spiritual one. So we're back to the fact that you take notice of fat old politicians in posh frocks instead of God.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I have a question I would like to pose to you and any other Christian who wants to weigh in, however: If death is as a result of sin, and given that your theology asserts Jesus' death provided a universal, comprehensive atonement for all sin including Adam and Chava's first sin in the Garden, why has death continued to grip the world for 2000+ years since the advent of Jesus?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

That's what Christians may claim, but if they want to claim that Jesus' supposed sacrifice cleared away all sins forever, then people literally should not have experienced earthly death since that time. Based on that assumption Christians (who believed their belief in Jesus saves them) most of all should have been spared it and continued living on and on their earthly lives without suffering from disease and death. The fact that they don't is 100% proof that Jesus did not save them from sin.

...

The Talmud teaches that there are a number of Torah observances that guarantee life after this one for Jews, and in truth they're not difficult at all to accomplish. It is taught that one who merely partakes in Torah learning is guaranteed eternal life. It is taught that one who benefits Torah scholars in specific ways (such as by giving a portion of money or property after death) merits eternal life. It is taught that one who puts on Tefillin even once merits eternal life. It is even taught that one who walks a specific amount of distance in the land of Israel merits eternal life. it is also taught that we merit eternal life because at the very least nearly all Jews still maintain the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision.

So why are people who partake of torah learning or wearing a tefillin still dying?

Am I the only one seeing a total logical disconnect here?

The truth of the matter here, Biggie, is that you're twisting your logic to suit your argument, in much the same way that the antisemites have accused your people of doing for the last thousand years.

Talk about adding fuel to the fire.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

We both believe with certainty that He does exist - don't you? I believe that every single breath I take, everything that occurs in my life, the continued existence of my people, all of nature and all of creation testifies to His existence.

Yes, I can look at a blade of grass and know that God exists, however...

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The difference I was pointing out is that you believe in a Messiah who you believe came 2,000 years ago and whose purported comprehensive salvation from sin cannot be objectively verified, while I believe in King Mashiach who is destined to come and whose existence will be attested to by objective, incontrovertible facts in the world when it occurs.

...I was pointing out the fact that you wish Christians to objectively verify their claims when you yourself cannot objectively verify yours. Again, logic and arguments are twisted to suit your ends.

Big Mac · 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Ooops - I must have forgotten that I do that with that "commandment". You'll have to reference a previous post where I've done that so I can remember.

Uh, you've referenced and mocked that before in the course of this discussion. (Specifically, I think it was in besson's thread on sexuality in Judaism and Christianity.)

I'm not mocking God. I'm mocking your silly tribal politics which your ancestors disguised as "G-d's will".

Bully for you if that's what you wish to believe, Doofy. If it's comforting to you to believe that the Torah is a phony fabrication of some secret cabal of Jewish leaders, and that they somehow got my nation (which in particular likes to argue almost everything and nearly never universally accepts external control) to completely believe in it and accept it as divine truth, then I'm glad you're comforted. I know differently, but go ahead and call it silly tribal politics all you want.

OK, so... ...if the commandment has nothing to do with getting into Heaven, then it must be a political law rather than a spiritual one. So we're back to the fact that you take notice of fat old politicians in posh frocks instead of God.

I didn't say it had nothing to do with getting into Heaven. I said that abiding by the Torah does have an impact not only on this life but also on the afterlife. There is the concept that most of the reward for abiding by the Torah is received in the afterlife. So I never said it has nothing to do with one's lot in the afterlife, and if I didn't make that clear in previous posts I apologize. What I mean to convey is that that particular mitzvah is not essential to guaranteeing one life in the next world, unless perhaps the only merit a person ever had in Torah was in abiding by that mitzvah (which is almost entirely impossible).

There are mitzvot that are core to what it means to follow G-d and His Torah, and there are other mitzvot that are also important because they're Torah commands, but they're not as essential. In other words, one can think of categories of mitzvot. The most important are those to believe in G-d, in His Torah, not to commit idolatry and other forms of alien worship, not to transgress Shabbos, etc. Think 10 Commandments. Then there are important mitzvot that are important but not as essential, and then there are more mitzvot that are still important but aren't critical to one's relationship with G-d. And if you doubt that concept, just look at the stated penalties involved. Transgression of the most important mitzvot is punishable by death, whereas there are not specific penalties noted for the less critical mitzvot.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I was pointing out the fact that you wish Christians to objectively verify their claims when you yourself cannot objectively verify yours. Again, logic and arguments are twisted to suit your ends.

Please Doofy, I am not twisting logic and arguments whatsoever. I grant you that to one who does not believe I cannot definitively prove G-d's existence - I have no qualms about recognizing that fact. Again, what I am saying though, is that according to my texts when Mashiach - the true messiah - comes, changes will occur in the world that will make it utterly impossible for anyone to doubt the existence of G-d. For one, in those days knowledge of G-d will become universal throughout humanity. That's what I mean when I tell you that Mashiach has yet to come, because if he had there would be no doubt left in the world about G-d's existence. The mere fact that we cannot prove to olePigeon, for example, that there is Creator, means that Mashiach has not yet come. The mere fact that the Arabs can continue to contest my people's ownership of what you sacrilegiously call a "shitty dustbowl" means that Mashiach has not yet come. The mere fact that you can sacrilegiously call the G-d of the Hebrew Scriptures a "racist dick" and mock His Torah means that Mashiach has not yet come and that your claims to the contrary are unquestionably objectively false.

(Btw, I think that I understand your motivation for mocking my Scriptures, mocking my G-d and mocking my homeland. I harmed you by debunking and ridiculing a very beloved portion of your beliefs, so you in turn attempt to harm me by ridiculing mine. Tit for tat, I get it. I hope that you will one day understand that mocking me doesn't help you or your relationship with the divine, however you may conceive of it. And either way, I'm glad to see you haven't put me on full ignore just yet, though.)

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Uh, you've referenced and mocked that before in the course of this discussion. (Specifically, I think it was in besson's thread on sexuality in Judaism and Christianity.)

Link it please.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Bully for you if that's what you wish to believe, Doofy. If it's comforting to you to believe that the Torah is a phony fabrication of some secret cabal of Jewish leaders, and that they somehow got my nation (which in particular likes to argue almost everything and nearly never universally accepts external control) to completely believe in it and accept it as divine truth, then I'm glad you're comforted. I know differently, but go ahead and call it silly tribal politics all you want.

OK, so let's look at another...

474: "Not to rob openly".
Why the need for this? God has already told you not to steal, no? Are your people that crooked that He needs to tell you these things twice, and in the second instance give up and say "oh well at least don't do it in front of people so it gives you a bad name"?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I didn't say it had nothing to do with getting into Heaven. I said that abiding by the Torah does have an impact not only on this life but also on the afterlife. There is the concept that most of the reward for abiding by the Torah is received in the afterlife. So I never said it has nothing to do with one's lot in the afterlife, and if I didn't make that clear in previous posts I apologize. What I mean to convey is that that particular mitzvah is not essential to guaranteeing one life in the next world, unless perhaps the only merit a person ever had in Torah was in abiding by that mitzvah (which is almost entirely impossible).

There are mitzvot that are core to what it means to follow G-d and His Torah, and there are other mitzvot that are also important because they're Torah commands, but they're not as essential. In other words, one can think of categories of mitzvot. The most important are those to believe in G-d, in His Torah, not to commit idolatry and other forms of alien worship, not to transgress Shabbos, etc. Think 10 Commandments. Then there are important mitzvot that are important but not as essential, and then there are more mitzvot that are still important but aren't critical to one's relationship with G-d. And if you doubt that concept, just look at the stated penalties involved. Transgression of the most important mitzvot is punishable by death, whereas there are not specific penalties noted for the less critical mitzvot.

So, knowing which mitzvot are important and which aren't is an easy thing? (annnd we're back to Dakar's last post).

What about 501? "Not to insult or harm anybody with words".
Surely that should be "Not to insult or harm anybody with words, except Jesus"? Is that an important mitzvot, or a tiny little transgression?

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Please Doofy, I am not twisting logic and arguments whatsoever. I grant you that to one who does not believe I cannot definitively prove G-d's existence - I have no qualms about recognizing that fact.

Well why not just say that then?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The mere fact that we cannot prove to olePigeon, for example, that there is Creator, means that Mashiach has not yet come.

I can prove it to Ole if he wants it proven. All he has to do is get on his knees with open heart and ask. Seek and you will find, etc..

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The mere fact that the Arabs can continue to contest my people's ownership of what you sacrilegiously call a "shitty dustbowl"

Well, it *is* a shitty dustbowl, isn't it?
God would create the whole world and make just one tiny little corner of it a holy place? Pull the other one.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The mere fact that you can sacrilegiously call the G-d of the Hebrew Scriptures a "racist dick"

I thought we'd already ascertained that the "god" of the OT is actually your ancestors. Who were racist dicks.

My God (the real living God who created the universe) isn't a racist dick. So you must be thinking of someone else.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

and mock His Torah means that Mashiach has not yet come and that your claims to the contrary are unquestionably objectively false.

Get on your knees and find out, if you can be bothered to entertain the idea that the real God is worthy enough to communicate with someone of your magnificent ancestral intellect.

Big Mac · 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Link it please.

Can we still be friends if I do? Here you go - even if by your reckoning you didn't explicitly mock the mitzvah you did mention it already.

OK, so let's look at another. 474: "Not to rob openly".
Why the need for this? God has already told you not to steal, no? Are your people that crooked that He needs to tell you these things twice, and in the second instance give up and say "oh well at least don't do it in front of people so it gives you a bad name"?

Regarding that specific issue, this is why again I'll refer to the rabbis mourning over the translation of the Torah. Non-Jews who lack Jewish education on the Torah and read just the translated text alone have a lot of conceptual gaps in their knowledge that cause confusion. The 10 Commandments refer to not stealing, but the text isn't explicit about what kind of stealing is meant. The Talmud teaches that the stealing referred to in the Decalogue is actually stealing of a human soul - kidnapping. Theft of property is proscribed elsewhere. You may not like that explanation - in fact I'm sure you won't because of its source - but you asked me and that's what I have to give.

So, knowing which mitzvot are important and which aren't is an easy thing? (annnd we're back to Dakar's last post).

Yes, it's pretty easy when you know that some are more essential than others. It's easy to know what's most important. And that's not to say the less essential mitzvot are not important to observe - Orthodox Jews do their utmost to fulfill the most minor among them - but it does mean that there is an explicit scale of importance attached.

What about 501? "Not to insult or harm anybody with words". Surely that should be "Not to insult or harm anybody with words, except Jesus"? Is that an important mitzvot, or a tiny little transgression?

To be clear to others, Doofy is using the numbering system that is found on Wikipedia's article on the 613 commandments. The mitzvah you are talking about is translated as, "And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow Jew, and you shall fear your God, for I am the Lord, your God." This is a mitzvah with a specific meaning that is expounded upon by the commentators. Rashi writes:

And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow-Jew: Here, [as opposed to the same expression in verse 14 above (see Rashi there),] Scripture is warning against wronging verbally, namely, that one must not provoke his fellow [Jew], nor may one offer advice to him that is unsound for him but according to the mode of life or the benefit of the advisor. And if you say, “Who can tell whether I had evil intentions [when I talked to my fellow in an insulting manner? Perhaps I did so in order to make him feel remorseful and repent his ways].” (see Be’er Basadeh). Therefore, it says, “and you shall fear your God.”-The One Who knows all thoughts-He knows. Concerning anything held in the heart and known only to the one who bears this thought in his mind, it says “and you shall fear your God!” - [B.M. 58b]

As for not insulting Jesus, that mitzvah doesn't directly apply. First of all, the Wikipedia listing does not accurately convey even the simple meaning of the mitzvah. The simple meaning doesn't even refer to speech, but from our sages we know that's the meaning. Secondly, according to the commentary it refers to not harming a fellow by purposely giving bad advice, so given that interpretation anything I've said here does not count at all as bad advice, and certainly even if anything I said were construed as bad advice it wouldn't be advice directed toward Jesus. What I have given here is good advice and sound testimony, that the Torah is eternal, not subject to revision and that if you want to be closer to G-d you should seek out its wisdom instead of following after a foreign mangod deity and incorrectly equating him with G-d. You may well contest that advise. You may tell me it's bad advise or false, but I'm giving to you and to others the same advice I take for myself. I cleave to Him and follow His Torah, and I reject false messiahs, false saviors and false deities, as I am commanded by G-d to do.

And furthermore, there is no mitzvah not to speak out against false deities. There are many mitzvot regarding destroying their cults of worship, destroy their idols, breaking down their altars, etc. (but specifically those residing in the Land of Israel). I am also commanded to reprove my fellow who may be tempted to follow after other gods. We as a people are also commanded to put to death any false prophet, any miracle worker and any person who tries to lead the people to follow after other deities, which include supposed physical forms of G-d that my ancestors were not only never taught to worship but additionally were explicitly warned against worshiping.

You may be right in one narrow sense, however. I may be doing the wrong thing by alerting you as a non-Jew to the problems inherently involved in your worship of the figure known as Jesus. There are verses in the Talmud that say while in Exile Jews are not to give away the "secret" of the Torah to the non-Jewish world, and there's the possibility that that could mean we are not to teach the non-Jewish world the religious errors of its ways. It's a possibility that what I'm doing her could count as violating that condition of the Exile, and if so I ask G-d for forgiveness for spoiling the secret before its time to be revealed. But there are so many Orthodox authorities and sources doing the same types of things online that I'm doing here, so at this point I will assume that I am not transgressing that condition. I'm also hoping that perhaps even one Jew can read some of this material and come back to G-d and His Torah, for if that can happen it's all worth it.

ebuddy · Jul 18, 2010, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I would ask you to consider this question, ebuddy:
Why would God create all manner of peoples (Europeans, Africans, Australian Aboriginals, Arabs, Maori, Injuns, Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols) and then choose one nation as His favourite? And why then, having chosen one nation as His favourite, would He promise them a shitty bit of desert in the middle of a bunch of warring tribes? Surely, as omnipotent creator of the Universe, He'd have given His favourite people somewhere a little nicer and a lot more inaccessible to those who war against them? Like, say, New Zealand.

You and I appear to have two entirely different meanings for the term "chosen". I'm not sure there are too many who would volunteer to be the people through whom God would send the Messiah given their degree of accountability to God. What you're referring to as a "preferred people" are a people who the Lord would "scatter among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, brought back to Egypt in ships to be offered for sale, etc ..."

You tell me to put down the books, but it is in the books of the Bible that I learned of God and where you learned of the command to Love God. Yet in these books I see only an impartial God who commands us to be impartial toward all mankind. In Deuteronomy, Job, Romans, Ephesians, Colossions, they're all echoing the same thing and yet none of them say anything remotely close to what you're claiming here. The fact is, God is impartial and commands us to be impartial toward mankind of all nations. Repeatedly.

So what we have here is a god of Doofy's choosing, on terms of Doofy's choosing, interpreted by Doofy, for Doofy which is fine of course and may serve you very well, but what confuses me is the motive to post in a thread where Doofy's Law is not only something we shouldn't be expected to know, but is of no consequence in a discussion on the theological principles of our God. What you would do well to consider is the difficulty of discussing Doofy's god without knowing Doofy better than Doofy knows himself.

Consider that if we are to believe the OT...

... as Doofy interprets it with an admitted disdain for books out of the gate. Notably, books such as the Bible.

... God is a racist God who chooses a favourite from amongst all of the people...

... mistaking chosen for "favorite" of course because again, without the pesky task of reading Scripture; one cannot be expected to comprehend the words within it. Instead, holding folks to account for somehow not knowing Doofy's creed as well as he. And... an admitted disdain for the books other people are discussing in this thread; the Bible both OT and NT.

... He made who then decides to promise them a shitty dustbowl to live in.

You seem to have a logical conundrum here. Are they a preferred people or aren't they?

Doesn't make any sense, does it?

No, not so much.

Now, my God, the one who sent His Son to die on a cross, ain't a racist dick. Of that I'm 100% sure. So which deity is coming out with all this "chosen people" crap? Not mine.

No deity that I know of. Certainly not mine and I don't get the impression BigMac's makes the claim as you've interpreted it either.

And again, same thing I said to Biggie I'll say to you. If you want to know the truth, put the books aside, get on your knees and ask for it.

I would suggest that perhaps your binoculars are trained on the wrong livingroom window? Strangely enough of all the times I've been on my knees praying to God, Doofy's Law was never written on my conscience.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You tell me to put down the books, but it is in the books of the Bible that I learned of God and where you learned of the command to Love God. Yet in these books I see only an impartial God who commands us to be impartial toward all mankind. In Deuteronomy, Job, Romans, Ephesians, Colossions, they're all echoing the same thing and yet none of them say anything remotely close to what you're claiming here. The fact is, God is impartial and commands us to be impartial toward mankind of all nations. Repeatedly.

Hmmm. I must have an outdated version of the OT then. Petty sure mine says stuff like:

Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth

but thou shalt utterly destroy them: the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee

Originally Posted by ebuddy

So what we have here is a god of Doofy's choosing, on terms of Doofy's choosing, interpreted by Doofy, for Doofy which is fine of course and may serve you very well, but what confuses me is the motive to post in a thread where Doofy's Law is not only something we shouldn't be expected to know, but is of no consequence in a discussion on the theological principles of our God. What you would do well to consider is the difficulty of discussing Doofy's god without knowing Doofy better than Doofy knows himself.

If you like.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

... as Doofy interprets it with an admitted disdain for books out of the gate. Notably, books such as the Bible.

... mistaking chosen for "favorite" of course because again, without the pesky task of reading Scripture; one cannot be expected to comprehend the words within it. Instead, holding folks to account for somehow not knowing Doofy's creed as well as he. And... an admitted disdain for the books other people are discussing in this thread; the Bible both OT and NT.

Post a link to somewhere I've displayed disdain for the NT.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I would suggest that perhaps your binoculars are trained on the wrong livingroom window? Strangely enough of all the times I've been on my knees praying to God, Doofy's Law was never written on my conscience.

There is no "Doofy's Law". There's God's law. If you can't hear it because of your cultural taint, then it's not my problem, is it?

Your god of the OT appears to people such as Ole as a bit of an asshole. The real God of the NT is no such thing. If you wish to push people like Ole away by choosing to side with murderous assholes, then it pushes aside the true message of the real God.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Can we still be friends if I do? Here you go - even if by your reckoning you didn't explicitly mock the mitzvah you did mention it already.

"Even if by my reckoning I didn't mock..."
What? Simply telling someone that Christians are not under those rules is "mocking" them, is it?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Regarding that specific issue, this is why again I'll refer to the rabbis mourning over the translation of the Torah.

You need fat old men in posh frocks to decipher what God says to his people? Wouldn't God simply write what He had to say in a manner which could be understood without reference to those fat old men?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Non-Jews who lack Jewish education on the Torah and read just the translated text alone have a lot of conceptual gaps in their knowledge that cause confusion.

Right. Dumb goy can't understand it!

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The 10 Commandments refer to not stealing, but the text isn't explicit about what kind of stealing is meant.

Only a twisted mind could come up with that.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Talmud teaches that the stealing referred to in the Decalogue is actually stealing of a human soul - kidnapping.

So the talmud changes the meaning of the "eternal torah" to suit its whim then. Good to know.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

To be clear to others, Doofy is using the numbering system that is found on Wikipedia's article on the 613 commandments. The mitzvah you are talking about is translated as, "And you shall not wrong, one man his fellow Jew, and you shall fear your God, for I am the Lord, your God."

Wait. Ebuddy has just stated that your OT god says be nice to everyone. So why does it say "fellow Jew"?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

As for not insulting Jesus, that mitzvah doesn't directly apply.

I had a feeling it may not. How convenient.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

We as a people are also commanded to put to death any false prophet, any miracle worker and any person who tries to lead the people to follow after other deities, which include supposed physical forms of G-d that my ancestors were not only never taught to worship but additionally were explicitly warned against worshiping.

Right, so that's a death threat from you to me then. Very saintly.

Big Mac · 07:01 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Well why not just say that then?

Did I not just write that? I have never denied that I can't objectively prove G-d's existence to a non-believer, but I can objectively prove to one and all that the supposed creation and supposed sacrifice of Jesus has not had the effect of saving a single soul from earthly death in 2,000+ years. I can objectively prove that the prophecies of King Mashiach have yet to be fulfilled and by that standard we can know for a fact that Mashiach has not yet come.

I can prove it to Ole if he wants it proven. All he has to do is get on his knees with open heart and ask. Seek and you will find, etc..

Yeah sure, Doofy. No matter how much you laud yourself in your own mind, and no matter how close you think you are to divine truth, there's no way sort of cult-level brainwashing that you're ever going to convince the likes of olePigeon to believe there is a G-d. olePigeon will only be convinced when there is no possible way to ignore His existence, and this is prophesied to occur with the coming of Mashiach. It hasn't happened yet.

Well, it *is* a shitty dustbowl, isn't it? God would create the whole world and make just one tiny little corner of it a holy place? Pull the other one.

No, I don't think of it as a shitty dustbowl. Do you speak from any experience - i.e. have you ever been there to experience it for yourself? I view the Land as beautiful, and it is my intention to relocate "home" when I have the opportunity to do so, but that's me. I'm a Jew. I love the land of David. What is true for me is obviously not true for you in that regard.

I thought we'd already ascertained that the "god" of the OT is actually your ancestors. Who were racist dicks.

No, you established that in your own little mind, Doofy. To me Torah is divine and eternal. (And I use little in the kindest of possible connotations. You're small minded because you look at the Torah and only see it from your very narrow, biased frame of mind. You call it racist, you call the Land a shitty dustbowl. You call the commandments products of posh frocks. Are those findings based on anything other than your own biased, shallow reading, subjective values and limited conception of truth and reality?

My God (the real living God who created the universe) isn't a racist dick. So you must be thinking of someone else.

Good for you, but if you don't believe in the G-d of the Hebrew Scriptures then we don't believe in the same deities. You can believe in Jesus and whatever deity you conceive of him worshiping, but as for me I'll stick with the G-d my forefathers knew and the eternal Torah He gave them.

Get on your knees and find out, if you can be bothered to entertain the idea that the real God is worthy enough to communicate with someone of your magnificent ancestral intellect.

I really find it funny that you keep harping on that, Doofy. How about this, I'll take your advice in a few hours when I do my evening prayers. I'll get down on my knees and beg my G-d to tell me the absolute truth and nothing about the truth. You know what I know for a fact I'll come up with? I'll be told that the Torah is the truth, that G-d is one and only, and that worshiping any form and equating any form with Him is corruption and falsehood. You know why? That's what I was raised to believe, that's what I have embraced in a much more serious way as an adult, and that's what I'm fully invested in. But also, beyond that, I've just recently seen signs that affirm the Torah path for me, signs that cannot possibly be explained away as chance occurrences, as I've said before. I know Torah Judaism to be truth. End of story.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Hmmm. I must have an outdated version of the OT then. Petty sure mine says stuff like:

It is only your biased and simplistic mode of understanding that causes you to react to those passages as you do, but I'm not here to convince of you the truth and beauty of the Torah.

Post a link to somewhere I've displayed disdain for the NT.

You've said openly that you don't base yourself on scripture. I've asked you if I had been wrong in assuming you base yourself on the Christian canon, and you implied that you don't believe in the so-called "New Testament" when you said that you base yourself on belief in and direct knowledge of what you characterize as "God" alone. That's what ebuddy picked up on. You mocked me for reliance on scripture. Didn't you say something like scripture is for simpletons?

There is no "Doofy's Law". There's God's law. If you can't hear it because of your cultural taint, then it's not my problem, is it?

You have a very specific and unusual definition of what your law is, and it apparently doesn't incorporate any scripture in an authoritative fashion. When you say you follow "God's law" we don't know what you're talking about. When I say I follow G-d's law, most people will understand that I mean His Torah. That's not understood about you because you have even denied basing yourself on the so-called "New Testament."

If you wish to push people like Ole away by choosing to side with murderous assholes, then it pushes aside the true message of the real God.

I've already addressed your accusations against the Torah, but again both ebuddy and I agree that we don't know what you mean by the "true message." The Christian canon quotes the Hebrew Scriptures many, many times. It has Jesus quote from or refer to the Hebrew Scriptures many times. The portrait painted of Jesus is that he recognized the authority of the Torah but thought that he could change things around and sidestep mitzvot that were inconvenient to him at the time. But you apparently not only disregard the Hebrew Scriptures as myth, you also must disregard at least all sections of the Christian Scriptures that express any esteem or appreciation for the former.

Yet you claim there's a true message, that you know it, that at least one other person here knows it, and that if a person gets on his knees and begs for it he will receive it too. Do you get the point, Doofy, that yours is not a normal version of Christianity? That you are outside the mainstream of the followers of Jesus with these claims you've been making? Chongo is a normal Christian, as is ebuddy. What you are is something different. Do you consider yourself a Marcion-type Christian like a previously referenced? Or is there some other way that you can convey for us to understand what you do and don't believe?

Btw, if you think olePigeon doesn't believe in G-d because of content you and he find objectionable within the Torah, I think you're very much mistaken. olePigeon is either an agnostic or an atheist. With or without the Torah, nothing any believer says is going to convince him of a Creator - not even you can do that, regardless of your assertions to the contrary. But if you think you can convert olePigeon to what you believe in, why don't you give it the college try? Then the two of you can report back here later, and if olePigeon suddenly starts affirming belief in either G-d or your conception of whatever "God" you happen to believe in, then I'll take your claims a bit more seriously. Right now I can't quite figure out if you're trolling or not.

Originally Posted by Doofy

What? Simply telling someone that Christians are not under those rules is "mocking" them, is it?

The flippant way you referred to the commandment was noted by me as a form of mocking, and you confirmed that mockery when you followed up with your subsequent comments on the topic.

You need fat old men in posh frocks to decipher what God says to his people? Wouldn't God simply write what He had to say in a manner which could be understood without reference to those fat old men?

I really am entertained by your Britishisms, but mocking posh frocks doesn't offend me if that's what you intend. I also don't know why you call those posh frocked figures old fat men, but if that makes you feel better about your religious beliefs again that's your thing. The Torah was given to a specific audience, namely the nation of Israel that was trained throughout 40+ years to observe it. The Torah doesn't spell out every detail that may be important to know, so yes sometimes we do rely on our sages who recorded the teachings of Moshe to tell us details that we may not otherwise know from the written Torah alone. I've already explained that. If you don't like that explanation you can take it up with G-d after your time on this earth is completed or with the real Mashiach if you get to see him. I personally have my own theories about the issue, but they're my independent views that haven't been externally validated and aren't suitable for posting in this venue because they would just most likely be mocked by people like you and olePigeon.

Right. Dumb goy can't understand it!

Your words, not mine, Doofy. You're trying to I have written repeatedly now that if you take the Hebrew Scriptures out of their Hebraic context by taking them out of their original language and also by trying to interpret them without a Hebraic framework of understanding and thought, you're going to come up with misinterpretations.

Only a twisted mind could come up with that.

I don't know why you would say that. In my view only a twisted mind could come up with the theology you claim to believe in.

So the talmud changes the meaning of the "eternal torah" to suit its whim then. Good to know.

Nope, it explains the original meaning of the text, the meaning that Moshe passed down to us. But you don't have to believe that. You can believe whatever you want to believe ebuddy.

Wait. Ebuddy has just stated that your OT god says be nice to everyone. So why does it say "fellow Jew"?

The commentary says fellow [Jew] because our sages have taught that where the Torah says fellow or neighbor it's referring specifically to fellow members of the nation of Israel and the righteous resident aliens who reside with Israel in the Land of Israel. When a Jew lives in the Land of Israel at a time that is under Jewish sovereignty, his neighbors are usually fellow Jews; that's how we are supposed to live, among other Jews. Also, those who live Torah observant lives outside of the Land too usually have Jewish neighbors because living amongst Jews is very important to living a Torah life. There are many mitzvot that govern our conduct toward non-Jews, but we are taught that fellow means fellow Jew. I know you'll mock that too, but you asked why something is the way it is and I explained it. Mock until the cows come home.

I had a feeling it may not. How convenient.

I explained the reason why. That mitzvah applies to not giving a fellow bad advice. Jesus is not my fellow; he isn't my neighbor. If there were an historical Jesus he lived and died 2,000 years ago and all that is left of the historical Jesus is perhaps bone dust in an ossuary. But Christians took that figure and turned him into a false prophet, a false messiah, a false savior and a false god. I therefore have not only the right but the duty to speak out against that which is false.

Right, so that's a death threat from you to me then. Very saintly.

Puhleeze. Whatever you want to believe, Doofy, but I never threatened you in any way, let alone with death, and I never would. Nothing like being a tad overly dramatic, huh? I said that my people are commanded to put to death any false prophet, any miracle worker, and any person specifically a fellow Jew who tries to lead us to worship any other deities. You are not a Jew so that does not apply to you. But even in regard to Jews who have turned against the Torah, we as a people only have the power to try capital cases when we have a Sanhedrin.

So no death threat implied or intended. I guess I wasn't being as clear as I should have been. You should just be concerned about what G-d thinks of your mockery of Him and His holy, eternal Torah.

lpkmckenna · Jul 18, 2010, 06:11 PM

The only thing I want to say to Big Mac right now is: Doofy isn't a Christian, but more like a Marcion Gnostic (which you've noted). He's neither representative of traditional Christianity nor any stream of modern Protestant or Catholic thought. He might not like the Jewish Scriptures, but his reading of the NT is utter nonsense. No one in modern exegesis, from the radical new perspective to the Southern Baptist Convention, would claim him.

I might be an atheist, but I'd hate to see reasonable Christians group with Doofy.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

The only thing I want to say to Big Mac right now is: Doofy isn't a Christian, but more like a Marcion Gnostic (which you've noted).

Marcionic gnosticism isn't Christian?
I'm esoteric Christian. A mystic. Anyone paying attention should know this - it's not like I've kept it hidden.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

He's neither representative of traditional Christianity nor any stream of modern Protestant or Catholic thought.

This is true. "Traditional" Christianity is a Christianity which has been tainted by those who would destroy it.
As an example, how many "Christians" (especially in the US) support capital punishment, when Christ himself was against it?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

He might not like the Jewish Scriptures

I like them just fine. You simply don't like my interpretation of them.

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

but his reading of the NT is utter nonsense.

What's my reading of the NT, and how is it nonsense?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I might be an atheist, but I'd hate to see reasonable Christians group with Doofy.

On the contrary - I'm much more reasonable than your average "traditional" Christian.

olePigeon · Jul 18, 2010, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

1) Love God.
2) Be excellent to each other.

Why would I want to love something that commits infanticide?

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Did I not just write that? I have never denied that I can't objectively prove G-d's existence to a non-believer, but I can objectively prove to one and all that the supposed creation and supposed sacrifice of Jesus has not had the effect of saving a single soul from earthly death in 2,000+ years.

And I can objectively prove to one and all that learning torah hasn't saved a single soul from earthly death in the last 2,500 years too.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

No, I don't think of it as a shitty dustbowl. Do you speak from any experience - i.e. have you ever been there to experience it for yourself?

Yup. Used to date a Palestinian chick. Shitty dustbowl. But then when you're from a place where it rains all the time, everywhere is a shitty dustbowl.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Good for you, but if you don't believe in the G-d of the Hebrew Scriptures then we don't believe in the same deities.

Now you're getting it.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I really find it funny that you keep harping on that, Doofy. How about this, I'll take your advice in a few hours when I do my evening prayers. I'll get down on my knees and beg my G-d to tell me the absolute truth and nothing about the truth. You know what I know for a fact I'll come up with?

Since you've already got a pre-decided answer, you'll come up with whatever you believe right now. See, the open heart and mind while you're doing it is a pretty important component.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

It is only your biased and simplistic mode of understanding

And I would argue that it's you who has a biased and simplistic mode of understanding. Your understanding is, as you've admitted, from your parents - it's what you've been brought up into. My understanding's from a different source with an unbiased approach - I started as a blank slate.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You've said openly that you don't base yourself on scripture. I've asked you if I had been wrong in assuming you base yourself on the Christian canon, and you implied that you don't believe in the so-called "New Testament" when you said that you base yourself on belief in and direct knowledge of what you characterize as "God" alone.

No, I said I don't believe in the OT.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

That's what ebuddy picked up on. You mocked me for reliance on scripture. Didn't you say something like scripture is for simpletons?

Yep. It's for simpletons. It's a starting point - a 101. Anyone in a relationship with God should outgrow the scriptures within a few years.

Of course, there are those who prefer to have a relationship with their books rather than with God. And if that's their bag, that's their bag.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You have a very specific and unusual definition of what your law is, and it apparently doesn't incorporate any scripture in an authoritative fashion. When you say you follow "God's law" we don't know what you're talking about.

Pick up a NT. Read the red words.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I've already addressed your accusations against the Torah, but again both ebuddy and I agree that we don't know what you mean by the "true message." The Christian canon quotes the Hebrew Scriptures many, many times. It has Jesus quote from or refer to the Hebrew Scriptures many times. The portrait painted of Jesus is that he recognized the authority of the Torah but thought that he could change things around and sidestep mitzvot that were inconvenient to him at the time. But you apparently not only disregard the Hebrew Scriptures as myth

No. I consider the OT to be corrupted by the racial political creeds of your ancestors. There's truth in there, but not as written.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Yet you claim there's a true message, that you know it, that at least one other person here knows it

No, these are two separate issues. Anyone can find the truth if they ask for it.

The "other person here" was in reference to my specific history of how I came to know. I took the hard route. And then found out that it's really quite easy.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

and that if a person gets on his knees and begs for it he will receive it too.

Yep. No need to beg though - God's not an asshole. Just ask.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Do you get the point, Doofy, that yours is not a normal version of Christianity?

Yep.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

That you are outside the mainstream of the followers of Jesus with these claims you've been making?

Yep.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Or is there some other way that you can convey for us to understand what you do and don't believe?

Pick up a NT. Read the red words.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Btw, if you think olePigeon doesn't believe in G-d because of content you and he find objectionable within the Torah, I think you're very much mistaken. olePigeon is either an agnostic or an atheist. With or without the Torah, nothing any believer says is going to convince him of a Creator - not even you can do that, regardless of your assertions to the contrary. But if you think you can convert olePigeon to what you believe in, why don't you give it the college try?

I firmly believe that if Ole is looking, gets on his knees and asks, he'll find.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Why would I want to love something that commits infanticide?

You must be confusing the god of the OT with the real God.

Big Mac · 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Marcionic gnosticism isn't Christian?

Not according to the original Jerusalem Church, it's not. Not according to the Catholic Church. Not according to Protestantism. Perhaps according to gnostic Christians, but your own Christian brethren aren't too keen on gnostic Christianity, are they?

I'm esoteric Christian. A mystic. Anyone paying attention should know this - it's not like I've kept it hidden.

Certainly is quite esoteric indeed. So you're a mystic Christian? What kinds of posh frocks are involved in that affair?

As an example, how many "Christians" (especially in the US) support capital punishment, when Christ himself was against it?

Except for the supposed statement from him that he "came not to bring peace but a sword" from Matthew 10. Not as peaceful and all loving as you'd want to portray him. Do you disregard that as the words of old fat Christian men in posh frocks?

I like them just fine. You simply don't like my interpretation of them.

How can you possibly say you like the Hebrew Scriptures just fine after everything you've written about them? What do you like about them, exactly? I'm fascinated that you could turn around and say such a thing in view of everything else you've written this very day on them.

On the contrary - I'm much more reasonable than your average "traditional" Christian.

Sure you are. You're the Pope in the Church of Doofy.

Originally Posted by Doofy

And I can objectively prove to one and all that learning torah hasn't saved a single soul from earthly death in the last 2,500 years too.

And I never once claimed it has. But by applying Christian logic, if you think Jesus saved all believers from all their sins for all of eternity, then there should be one Christian believer out that who was a contemporary of Jesus' and is still living a perfectly sustained bodily life on earth for lo these 2,000 years. There isn't a single one, which proves conclusively that Jesus did not, has not and will not save anyone from sin.

Yup. Used to date a Palestinian chick. Shitty dustbowl. But then when you're from a place where it rains all the time, everywhere is a shitty dustbowl.

I see. That's some phraseology. What was it like dating a "Palestinian" chick anyway?

Now you're getting it.

Okay, it's good that we know that about each other now. See, usually a person who calls himself a Christian believes certain things that are common to normative Christianity, which includes a large amount of reverence for the Hebrew Scriptures. So when you previously portrayed yourself as a Christian I assumed that you were a mainstream Christian. Hence the confusion.

Since you've already got a pre-decided answer, you'll come up with whatever you believe right now. See, the open heart and mind while you're doing it is a pretty important component.

That's a big part of the problem with what you're asking for Doofy - no matter what I claim to have found out by doing what you request, you're going to say I haven't followed you're direction because I'm biased and haven't truly opened my heart and mind. I know what I know to be the truth, and your very weak and unorthodox claims to the contrary won't change that. You'd have to force a lobotomy on me to get me to even consider thinking as you do.

And I would argue that it's you who has a biased and simplistic mode of understanding. Your understanding is, as you've admitted, from your parents - it's what you've been brought up into. My understanding's from a different source with an unbiased approach - I started as a blank slate.

Yes, my mode of understanding originally came from my parents, and from their parents and their parents all the way back to Sinai. Now you believe what I believe is just myth, and I won't be able to convince you otherwise, at least until Mashiach comes. But I have a source and a heritage, an eternal possession that was given to my people that you did not have. You admit to having a blank slate, whereas I affirm that my people have always possessed the divine truth from Sinai on, the truth that was taught to me prior to and upon my first day in this world. Why would I, who know I've received G-d truth from the womb on, ever contemplate rejecting that truth in favor of a single person's unusual anecdotal testimony? Anecdotal testimony coming from a person who admitted to previously being a blank slate? What amazing level of arrogance allows you to proclaim that you have a monopoly on divine truth?

No, I said I don't believe in the OT.

Okay, but if you don't then I guess you also don't believe in many parts of the Christian Scriptures where Jesus and others quote from and rely on the Hebrew Scriptures? Where Jesus says that anyone who teaches another to violate the Torah is called the least in his kingdom? Is that to you evidence of the old fat Christian-Jew deceivers in posh frocks writing?

Yep. It's for simpletons. It's a starting point - a 101. Anyone in a relationship with God should outgrow the scriptures within a few years.

According to whom? You and your first generation previously blank slate teachings? Why should anyone believe you?

Of course, there are those who prefer to have a relationship with their books rather than with God. And if that's their bag, that's their bag.

You apparently also have relationships with your books, but you seemingly pick and choose out of them what you wish to believe. Anything that conflicts with your very narrow, unorthodox approach to the divine is rejected, based on your own standard. The Church of Doofy.

Pick up a NT. Read the red words.

You mean a Red Letter Bible? The work of a 19th Century German author? Why would you base yourself on that diminution of scripture in particular? What to your mind makes that work and others like it authoritative?

No. I consider the OT to be corrupted by the racial political creeds of your ancestors. There's truth in there, but not as written.

And you think your deity taught you that?

The "other person here" was in reference to my specific history of how I came to know. I took the hard route. And then found out that it's really quite easy.

So in other words, you aren't even the master of your school of religion? It's not the Church of Doofy? Hmmm. I'm going to have to work to identify your master. Are there only two of you - a master and an apprentice in a Sith Lord type relationship?

Yep. No need to beg though - God's not an asshole. Just ask.

I'll ask him very soon, and He will tell me my path is the true one, but then you'll say I'm just biased. In the end I have my view based uncompromisingly on TaNaKh and everything that goes with it, and you have your view based on a subset of the Christian Scriptures and whatever else you promulgate in your own personal church.

I firmly believe that if Ole is looking, gets on his knees and asks, he'll find.

I'll be waiting to see you ever manage to convert him, but I won't be holding my breath.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Not according to the original Jerusalem Church, it's not. Not according to the Catholic Church. Not according to Protestantism. Perhaps according to gnostic Christians, but your own Christian brethren aren't too keen on gnostic Christianity, are they?

I don't care what my brethren are keen on. I'm not interested in keeping them happy at all.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Certainly is quite esoteric indeed. So you're a mystic Christian? What kinds of posh frocks are involved in that affair?

No posh frocks at all.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Except for the supposed statement from him that he "came not to bring peace but a sword" from Matthew 10. Not as peaceful and all loving as you'd want to portray him.

If we are to assume that it's Him wielding the sword, and not those who're against Him.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Do you disregard that as the words of old fat Christian men in posh frocks?

I disregard the teachings of fat old Christian men in posh frocks.
Archbish of CoE? Complete tool.

Have you not noticed by now that I'm a complete maverick, Biggie?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

How can you possibly say you like the Hebrew Scriptures just fine after everything you've written about them? What do you like about them, exactly?

There's some truth in parts of them. It's very easy to see which parts are the truth and which are political crap.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Sure you are. You're the Pope in the Church of Doofy.

Nope. Just an individual who doesn't subscribe to the communistic notions of "must believe/do what the old men in posh frocks say".

Big Mac · 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I don't care what my brethren are keen on. I'm not interested in keeping them happy at all.

Okay, good to know. I thank you for informing me on more of the shape of your unique set of beliefs.

No posh frocks at all.

That's too bad, then. You seem quite caught up on the whole posh frocks thing, so I hoped that as a big-wig in your own very exclusive church you'd get to have some for yourself.

If we are to assume that it's Him wielding the sword, and not those who're against Him.

That's not what the verses imply at all. You believe in a man who said he came to divide households, who said that his followers had to hate their own "mothers and fathers, wives and children." My G-d never would command such a thing. In fact the real Mashiach is destined to turn the hearts of the children to their parents, not against. I'm sure glad I don't worship your mangod.

Have you not noticed by now that I'm a complete maverick, Biggie?

I didn't always know that. Now I do.

There's some truth in parts of them. It's very easy to see which parts are the truth and which are political crap.

If tomorrow you found out all the Torah is divine truth, what would that do to your belief system?

And for the sake of argument, can you give an example of what you think is truth from the Hebrew Scriptures?

Nope. Just an individual who doesn't subscribe to the communistic notions of "must believe/do what the old men in posh frocks say".

Based on what evidence can you claim that the Torah is not from G-d and rather is the corrupt product of men in posh frocks? Why are you so caught up in the clothing of these alleged grand conspirators, I have to wonder. And again, what makes you think a conspiracy could be orchestrated to invent the Torah and that my people who are notorious for being stiff necked and obstinate would accept it as truth?

There are no variant versions of the Torah, and until the last 200 years all Jews attested to its divine origin. The Sadducees rejected the Oral Torah but affirmed the divine origin of the Written Torah that you, Doofy, vilify. The Samaritans were non-Jewish implants who hated the Jews and took for themselves their own Torah, but their version only differs in any substantial way in a few key passages throughout the whole text. Contrast that with Christianity and its many variant texts and traditions. The Torah is G-d's divine and eternal truth, Doofy. But let's consider your argument for a second. Those supposed conspirators who you believe fabricated the Torah would have had to accomplish an awesome level of deceit to:

1) Fabricate the Torah pretty early on, not too long after the Exodus;
2) Agree to all the large and small details it contains;
3) Encode in it objectively verifiable encoded information without screwing up the regular reading of the text;
4) Cause all the people to accept it as the truth of what they and their families had just recently experienced - the Exodus and the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai.
5) Erase any memory and any record of the human fabrication of the texts.

Now you offer a credible account as to how that could possibly have happened. The much simpler explanation is the right one:

1) G-d delivered the people out of Egypt and met them at Mount Sinai around 3,200 years ago, at which time He spoke to them the 10 Commandments;
2) He gave Moshe the whole Torah, which contained all the large and small details as well as the objectively verifiable encoded information that He encoded in it;
3) The people accepted the Torah because it contained the correct account of everything they had experienced, and they passed down the Torah and the associated knowledge to each generation forward.

But here I am trying to argue that which is absolute truth to one who is willfully oblivious to it, much more so than normal Christians. You believe whatever you want to believe, Doofy, and you take it up with G-d at the appointed time. I'll do the same for myself.

(Oh and I promise, ebuddy and Chongo, that I'll get to your two earlier replies some time tonight.)

lpkmckenna · Jul 18, 2010, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Marcionic gnosticism isn't Christian?

No. He was denounced as a heretic in the second century, by both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

As an example, how many "Christians" (especially in the US) support capital punishment, when Christ himself was against it?

We don't know this. In fact, it seems pretty unlikely, given lifetime imprisonment for murder would have been absurdly expensive in the ancient world. Jesus talks about many things, but capital punishment is never mentioned by him.

No, I said I don't believe in the OT.

That right there isn't Christianity. For Paul and Peter and Jesus and James, the OT was the only scripture. They used it in their preaching and spoke reverently about it. Paul: "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that through patience and through encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." The Christian Church kept the Jewish Bible because it was crucial to being a Christian.

Pick up a NT. Read the red words.

Frankly, that just won't do. You need to know why he said what he said, not just what he said.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 08:30 PM

I wish you'd stop editing your posts to add more, Biggie.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And I never once claimed it has. But by applying Christian logic, if you think Jesus saved all believers from all their sins for all of eternity, then there should be one Christian believer out that who was a contemporary of Jesus' and is still living a perfectly sustained bodily life on earth for lo these 2,000 years. There isn't a single one, which proves conclusively that Jesus did not, has not and will not save anyone from sin.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

It is taught that one who merely partakes in Torah learning is guaranteed eternal life. It is taught that one who benefits Torah scholars in specific ways (such as by giving a portion of money or property after death) merits eternal life. It is taught that one who puts on Tefillin even once merits eternal life. It is even taught that one who walks a specific amount of distance in the land of Israel merits eternal life.

So, the Christian "eternal life" is physical, while the judaic "eternal life" is something else. You're just twisting to suit, Biggie. You'd make a good politician.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

What was it like dating a "Palestinian" chick anyway?

Bit of a nightmare. She was lovely, but her family were a bunch of freaks who gave me a hard time 'coz I didn't want to kill Jews.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Okay, it's good that we know that about each other now. See, usually a person who calls himself a Christian believes certain things that are common to normative Christianity, which includes a large amount of reverence for the Hebrew Scriptures. So when you previously portrayed yourself as a Christian I assumed that you were a mainstream Christian. Hence the confusion.

I don't class "normative" Christianity as proper Christianity. Especially the US versions, where it's been tainted by culture.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

That's a big part of the problem with what you're asking for Doofy - no matter what I claim to have found out by doing what you request, you're going to say I haven't followed you're direction because I'm biased and haven't truly opened my heart and mind. I know what I know to be the truth, and your very weak and unorthodox claims to the contrary won't change that. You'd have to force a lobotomy on me to get me to even consider thinking as you do.

All you have to do is clear your mind and ask, Biggie. It won't come straight away but if you seek, you'll find. But you already have your pre-set answer, decided for you by some fat old men in posh frocks 2,500 years ago.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

But I have a source and a heritage, an eternal possession that was given to my people that you did not have.

You got a shitty dustbowl surrounded by people who want to kill you. I got the whole world.

Each to his own, I guess.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You admit to having a blank slate, whereas I affirm that my people have always possessed the divine truth from Sinai on, the truth that was taught to me prior to and upon my first day in this world.

Why would you not put aside the things of infants? Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too? Your parents told you that truth when you were young, did they not? How much is a tooth worth these days?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Why would I, who know I've received G-d truth from the womb on, ever contemplate rejecting that truth in favor of a single person's unusual anecdotal testimony? Anecdotal testimony coming from a person who admitted to previously being a blank slate? What amazing level of arrogance allows you to proclaim that you have a monopoly on divine truth?

You know what arrogance allows me to do that? I got on my knees and asked for the truth. I didn't receive it blindly from my family.

Your claims of lineage to the truth make as much sense as the islamic claims of lineage to the truth. Who to believe? You or them? One bunch of fat old men in posh frocks or another bunch of fat old men in posh frocks?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Okay, but if you don't then I guess you also don't believe in many parts of the Christian Scriptures where Jesus and others quote from and rely on the Hebrew Scriptures?

I've just told you that it's quite easy to see which parts are the truth and which aren't.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Where Jesus says that anyone who teaches another to violate the Torah is called the least in his kingdom?

Which torah? The one your boys wrote or the one God writes into people's hearts?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

According to whom? You and your first generation previously blank slate teachings? Why should anyone believe you?

I'm not saying believe me. I'm saying pray with an open mind and believe what God tells you.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You apparently also have relationships with your books, but you seemingly pick and choose out of them what you wish to believe. Anything that conflicts with your very narrow, unorthodox approach to the divine is rejected, based on your own standard. The Church of Doofy.

Actually, I burnt all my books about ten years ago. I run on pure mysticism now.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You mean a Red Letter Bible? The work of a 19th Century German author? Why would you base yourself on that diminution of scripture in particular? What to your mind makes that work and others like it authoritative?

"Red words" meaning the words of Jesus, in any Bible.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And you think your deity taught you that?

No. I know that God taught me that.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

So in other words, you aren't even the master of your school of religion? It's not the Church of Doofy? Hmmm. I'm going to have to work to identify your master.

No need to work at it. You've called my master a "bastard" several times in this thread.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I'll ask him very soon, and He will tell me my path is the true one, but then you'll say I'm just biased.

Ask properly (without your pre-set answer) and you'll be amazed. I guarantee it.

olePigeon · Jul 18, 2010, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

You must be confusing the god of the OT with the real God.

So you're calling Jesus Christ a liar?

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

No. He was denounced as a heretic in the second century, by both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus.

And everything bar the catholic church is denounced as heretical these days. Does that mean that protestants aren't Christian?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

We don't know this. In fact, it seems pretty unlikely, given lifetime imprisonment for murder would have been absurdly expensive in the ancient world. Jesus talks about many things, but capital punishment is never mentioned by him.

Aside from the whole "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" episode, you mean?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

That right there isn't Christianity. For Paul and Peter and Jesus and James, the OT was the only scripture.

Jesus needed scripture? His disciples needed scripture?

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

They used it in their preaching and spoke reverently about it. Paul: "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that through patience and through encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope." The Christian Church kept the Jewish Bible because it was crucial to being a Christian.

It's relatively useful to 101, to planting the seed. Not beyond.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

So you're calling Jesus Christ a liar?

How do you come to that assumption?

Big Mac · Jul 18, 2010, 08:47 PM

I don't think you know even Christian scriptures very well at all, Doofy, let alone the Hebrew Scriptures. lpk is a better Christian than you, and he's an atheist! Even olePigeon sees the irrationality in what you preach.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 08:51 PM

So it's down to personal attacks now, is it Biggie?

Is that all you've got? Aligning yourself with two atheists in order to make your argument seem better?

You are truly a godly individual! Your ancestors would be proud.

Chongo · Jul 18, 2010, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I have a question I would like to pose to you and any other Christian who wants to weigh in, however: If death is as a result of sin, and given that your theology asserts Jesus' death provided a universal, comprehensive atonement for all sin including Adam and Chava's first sin in the Garden, why has death continued to grip the world for 2000+ years since the advent of Jesus? Why do all living things still get born into this world only to die? Why didn't we see a perfected existence the minute Jesus' alleged permanent vicarious atonement through self-sacrifice occurred?

Spiritual death, not physical death. That was the serpent's trick used in the Garden.
Genesis 3 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

א וְהַנָּחָשׁ, הָיָה עָרוּם, מִכֹּל חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים; וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה, אַף כִּי-אָמַר אֱלֹהִים, לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן. 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman: 'Yea, hath God said: Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?'
ב וַתֹּאמֶר הָאִשָּׁה, אֶל-הַנָּחָשׁ: מִפְּרִי עֵץ-הַגָּן, נֹאכֵל. 2 And the woman said unto the serpent: 'Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;
ג וּמִפְּרִי הָעֵץ, אֲשֶׁר בְּתוֹךְ-הַגָּן--אָמַר אֱלֹהִים לֹא תֹאכְלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, וְלֹא תִגְּעוּ בּוֹ: פֶּן-תְּמֻתוּן. 3 but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.'
ד וַיֹּאמֶר הַנָּחָשׁ, אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה: לֹא-מוֹת, תְּמֻתוּן. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman: 'Ye shall not surely die;

A bit further on

כב וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ, לָדַעַת, טוֹב וָרָע; וְעַתָּה פֶּן-יִשְׁלַח יָדוֹ, וְלָקַח גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים, וְאָכַל, וָחַי לְעֹלָם. 22 And the LORD God said: 'Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.
כג וַיְשַׁלְּחֵהוּ יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, מִגַּן-עֵדֶן--לַעֲבֹד, אֶת-הָאֲדָמָה, אֲשֶׁר לֻקַּח, מִשָּׁם. 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
כד וַיְגָרֶשׁ, אֶת-הָאָדָם; וַיַּשְׁכֵּן מִקֶּדֶם לְגַן-עֵדֶן אֶת-הַכְּרֻבִים, וְאֵת לַהַט הַחֶרֶב הַמִּתְהַפֶּכֶת, לִשְׁמֹר, אֶת-דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים. {ס} 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed at the east of the garden of Eden the cherubim, and the flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way to the tree of life.

They were kicked from the Garden not only for eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but so they could not eat of the tree of life and thus live for ever.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

Spiritual death, not physical death.

He knows that. He's just being tricksy, like a cheap lawyer.

ebuddy · 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Hmmm. I must have an outdated version of the OT then. Petty sure mine says stuff like:

... ahh for crying out loud this is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about "dimestore theology" Doofy. Eureka, you've found where God seeks justice and has brought judgment on people. First of all, (in the gospel of Doofy) what is the penalty for not 1. loving God or 2. being excellent to one another? I mean, other than the planting of George Carlin or Keanu Reeves thoughts in your mind.

I'm often fascinated (sometimes concerned) by folks who chest-pound their closeness with God by only identifying things they feel are not "Godly". So again you've found judgement in Deuteronomy, but consider the Canaanites as one of your examples; did you happen to catch in Genesis when God spares the Amorites (a Canaanite clan) for four hundred years at the expense of the Preferred™ ones? Of course not. I mean, I don't know why you're going so far out of your way to advocate a closeness with God when you assume such an antagonistic role for Him. If God is to prepare for His fellowship with man through a line of people, it follows logically that their enemies would be addressed, but not until His appointed number have fallen to iniquity of their own will.

You've got a couple of problems here IMO. First you assume, for whatever reason, that God must be more concerned about our fleshly bodies than our eternal being to be a Just God. Second, you fail to account for a very necessary and basic chain of events that led to those words in red you're talkin' about. Third, you're critiquing a movie you've either not seen or slept through as evidenced by your attempt to cite scenes of it. Lastly, the conversation is a little loaded in that we know what text you're critiquing and the God you've fashioned therefrom, but we don't know anything of the doom that awaits transgressors of Doofy's Law for example.

Post a link to somewhere I've displayed disdain for the NT.

Why would you assume one who is well-read in books (speaking of the Bible of course and from my perspective through references in this thread both Old and New Testaments) would need to put them aside in order to get on my knees and ask for the truth?

There is no "Doofy's Law". There's God's law. If you can't hear it because of your cultural taint, then it's not my problem, is it?

Why would you ask this of one whom you suspect has a cultural taint? Is your insecurity a cultural trait? What do you know of God's Law? How did you hear of God's Law if not the oral teachings of Eddie?

Your god of the OT appears to people such as Ole as a bit of an asshole.

He appears this way to others too such as, well... you. It's no surprise that Ole would regard the OT God in this manner as well, but there's nothing to suggest to me that Ole has any better a grasp on Scripture than you.

The real God of the NT is no such thing. If you wish to push people like Ole away by choosing to side with murderous assholes, then it pushes aside the true message of the real God.

While I do think there are too many bent on espousing the bad news instead of the good news, the real God as you describe Him is no more clear, believable, or compelling a deity to folks like Ole than any other deity. Don't take my word for it, ask Ole.

Consider this Doofy: given the words you've provided us in this thread, I could as easily strip them out of context and make you appear to be a racist dick. Of course, that would be dimestore trolling. And I'd be wrong.

Doofy · Jul 18, 2010, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You've got a couple of problems here IMO. First you assume

Your main problem is that you assume that I assume. You assume that I'm lower in my understanding of scripture than you are, assume that I don't understand all the ins and outs. Never occurred to you that I might know the whole lot inside out and have simply transcended it. Kind of hard to get past that, ain't it?

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Why would you assume one who is well-read in books (speaking of the Bible of course and from my perspective through references in this thread both Old and New Testaments) would need to put them aside in order to get on my knees and ask for the truth?

Why would you not try it? Why would any Christian (or non-Christian seeking the truth) not double-check? Do you not have a personal relationship with God? Just a social thing to keep you in good standing with your neighbours? Go to church, wear your Sunday best, sing loudly, etc.?

You want the "gospel of Doofy"? Christianity, without the cultural taint. Those two rules? Red words. Why don't you attempt to find them sometime?

Let's boil down exactly what you're doing right now, ebuddy. You're siding against me (and all I've said is that you should seek the truth by asking for it - an exact copy of what Jesus states that you should do) with someone who calls Jesus a "bastard" and says he'd be glad to kill Him should He ever show up again.

If that's proper "normalised" Christianity, you can shove it - I'll stick to being a heretic.

/End of participation.

Big Mac · 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I wish you'd stop editing your posts to add more, Biggie.

Sorry, there's a lot to cover. And see how hard it must have been for those evil Jews in posh frocks you believe in to fabricate a Torah when I usually can't come up with a full post without a bunch of edits?

So, the Christian "eternal life" is physical, while the judaic "eternal life" is something else. You're just twisting to suit, Biggie. You'd make a good politician.

The point went whooshing over your head, Doofy. (And if you can't follow my logic in that regard, you should think long and hard about your claim that you have some superior knowledge. I can see that I'm on a much higher intellectual level than you are given that I've had to dumb down my thoughts in this section so that hopefully you won't misunderstand my point again.) Both Judaism and Christianity claim to offer paths to the afterlife (after one's years on this earth). I'm not contesting that. What I am saying, again, is the following:

1. Both Judaism and Christianity agree that human beings die if for no other reason than the sin of Adam and Chava (Eve). Christians call it original sin while Jews do not, but we have similar general views of it (I think). I think both religions agree that even one who could theoretically lead a perfect existence would still die because of that original sin of disobeying G-d and eating the forbidden fruit. Isn't it often stated by Christians that "Adam's sin brought death into the world"?

2. My point about Christian theology is that Jesus is claimed by Christians to have been the perfect atoning vicarious sacrifice for all time that cleared away all sin for believers, including the original sin.

3. If point two is an accurate rendering of Christian theology, then according to that theology Christians believers (at least) should no longer be under any sin, including original sin.

4. And if point three follows, then Christian believers should no longer suffer the effects of the original sin, i.e. they should no longer suffer bodily death in this world.

5. But given that no Christian contemporary of Jesus is still physically alive, and given also that no Christian over a certain age is alive either, we therefore know that,

6. Ergo, Jesus' alleged sacrifice did not atone for original sin, which should cause Christians to have grave doubts about whether that alleged sacrifice atoned for any sin at all. There is no objective reason to believe the alleged sacrifice had any value whatsoever.

Did you understand my point this time? I don't think I can explain it any more simply. Now in contrast to that line of thought, I was trying to point out that when King Mashiach comes there will be no doubt about whether or not he has come because all the true prophecies about his coming that I already mentioned a number of times now will be fulfilled in an objective, incontrovertible way.

Btw, if you claim that sin in the Garden led to spiritual and not physical death and you want to believe Jesus corrected for spiritual death, I think that's a very troubled theological notion. How is spiritual death manifested, in your opinion, and how do you think the alleged corrective atonement of Jesus corrected for spiritual death?

G-d declared to Adam and his Chava that if they ate fruit from the tree of Good and Evil, they would die on that day. In truth when the sin occurred G-d did not desire to kill them, but he had to banish them from the prospect of eternal life in the Garden. They began to die after the incident, and the death was a physical one. Spiritually they were not dead. Abel's blood cried out from the ground - his spirit wasn't dead. If original sin meant instant spiritual death, then humans after Adam would never have been be born into the world. Without the ruach we can't live, after all. So claiming that original sin is about spiritual death is not correct.

Bit of a nightmare. She was lovely, but her family were a bunch of freaks who gave me a hard time 'coz I didn't want to kill Jews.

Quite generous of you. Hope I haven't made you change your opinion in that regard.

I don't class "normative" Christianity as proper Christianity. Especially the US versions, where it's been tainted by culture.

I'm not just talking about American Christianity. Mainstream Christianity globally does not agree with your mystic version of Christianity.

All you have to do is clear your mind and ask, Biggie. It won't come straight away but if you seek, you'll find.

Didn't you say that the alleged answers aren't hard to come by? Now you're changing your tune, Doofy.

You got a shitty dustbowl surrounded by people who want to kill you. I got the whole world.

Each to his own, I guess.

I can have the whole world, too. But there's a difference between dwelling somewhere or owning a government title to land versus having ownership of the land by eternal divine right, but then you just think that's racist, right?

Why would you not put aside the things of infants?

You know that olePigeon can say the very same to you about your religion, such that it is.

You know what arrogance allows me to do that? I got on my knees and asked for the truth. I didn't receive it blindly from my family.

No you received whatever you characterize as truth by wiping out all information and common sense and creating a blank slate of your mind - your words not mine, Doofy. You acquired what you count as knowledge through willful ignorance. How do you now know that you are not still as ignorant as you were when your mind was blank?

Your claims of lineage to the truth make as much sense as the islamic claims of lineage to the truth. Who to believe? You or them? One bunch of fat old men in posh frocks or another bunch of fat old men in posh frocks?

Islam doesn't use lineage as a principle claim to truth. They really on the testimony of Mohammed. You, Doofy, rely on heaven knows what, possibly a mental disorder that caused you to think a deity was speaking to you. You know what just came to me? You remind me of classic Homer Simpson in Homer the Heretic, wherein he believes he has been visited by the deity and told that he can start a new religion because the existing ones don't work for him. That's the type of experience and belief you've been describing.

Which torah? The one your boys wrote or the one God writes into people's hearts?

How do you know "my boys" wrote it? Again, how can you say you know with certainty that it's the product of human hands rather than divine?

I'm not saying believe me. I'm saying pray with an open mind and believe what God tells you.

I have. That's why before I was a mostly secular Jew and now I'm an increasingly Orthodox Jew.

Actually, I burnt all my books about ten years ago. I run on pure mysticism now.

The Mystical Church of Esoteric Doofism.

"Red words" meaning the words of Jesus, in any Bible.

Then I can pick out of series of such quotations that you wouldn't be able to claim you believe in.

No. I know that God taught me that.

How do you know that for a fact? Your mind was blank - you were awash in perfect ignorance - and then someone started talking to you. For the sake of argument, how do you know that wasn't/isn't Satan? (One should keep in mind that Jews don't believe in the Satan of Christianity, although we do have a conception of the Satan.)

No need to work at it. You've called my master a "bastard" several times in this thread.

You implied that the other person on MacNN taught you this mystical technique. Are you saying you believe that one of the Forum's regular members is actually Jesus?

Ask properly (without your pre-set answer) and you'll be amazed. I guarantee it.

Do I have to bash myself over the head with a blunt object a number of times in order to open my head up enough to ask in the manner you would like me to ask? I can't just be ignorant and have a blank slate mind like you did, Doofy. Something tells me that you're the type of guy who would have been among the first to drink the Jim Jones Kool Aid.

besson3c · 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

And again, same thing I said to Biggie I'll say to you. If you want to know the truth, put the books aside, get on your knees and ask for it.

Why is it that truth involves putting books aside and basically turning off your mind, if I'm understanding you correctly? A leap of faith this way and opening up your heart is an attempt to seek emotional comfort and perhaps finding truth for you, but not "truth" as in something rational, right?

Doofy · Jul 19, 2010, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The point went whooshing over your head, Doofy. (And if you can't follow my logic in that regard, you should think long and hard about your claim that you have some superior knowledge. I can see that I'm on a much higher intellectual level than you are given that I've had to dumb down my thoughts in this section so that hopefully you won't misunderstand my point again.) Both Judaism and Christianity claim to offer paths to the afterlife (after one's years on this earth). I'm not contesting that. What I am saying, again, is the following:

Oh, you mention original sin now. Why didn't you mention that to start with?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Quite generous of you.

I thought so.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I'm not just talking about American Christianity. Mainstream Christianity globally does not agree with your mystic version of Christianity.

No. Really?

Didn't I just agree to that accusation half a page ago?
Do you think it's some kind of insult to me?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Didn't you say that the alleged answers aren't hard to come by? Now you're changing your tune, Doofy.

The answers aren't hard to come by. They just might not come immediately. You understand the difference between hard and immediate, no?
These things take time to manifest.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You, Doofy, rely on heaven knows what, possibly a mental disorder that caused you to think a deity was speaking to you.

And yet more insults.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

How do you know that for a fact? Your mind was blank - you were awash in perfect ignorance - and then someone started talking to you. For the sake of argument, how do you know that wasn't/isn't Satan? (One should keep in mind that Jews don't believe in the Satan of Christianity, although we do have a conception of the Satan.)

I know it's right because people like you are against it. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You implied that the other person on MacNN taught you this mystical technique.

No I didn't. Bugger me dude, are you actually trying to live up to the stereotypes or is it just coming naturally?

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Do I have to bash myself over the head with a blunt object a number of times in order to open my head up enough to ask in the manner you would like me to ask?

No. But in your case it can't hurt, so give it a try. 15lb sledge should do it.

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Something tells me that you're the type of guy who would have been among the first to drink the Jim Jones Kool Aid.

You know I'm not.
I thought my 15,000+ posts here would go some way to displaying some proof that I'm one of the most cynical bastards on the planet. Obviously not, if it suits your argument to imply otherwise.

Right now, if I told you what I thought of you I'd get an infraction. So I won't. Use your imagination.

besson3c · Jul 19, 2010, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

other than the planting of George Carlin or Keanu Reeves thoughts in your mind.

Keanu Reeves would make for a kick ass deity.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2010, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Why is it that truth involves putting books aside, and basically turning off your mind, if I'm understanding you correctly?

You can read the man page for a linux app until you're blue in the face, but if you want to master it sooner or later you're going to have to jump in with both feet and actually use it.

You can read about guitars and memorise all the chords and scale until your eyes fall out, but you won't be able to play it until you put the book down and put fingers against wood.

Consider sex. No amount of book reading will make up for actual practice, nor prepare you for the feeling the first time.

Consider Zen Buddhism. Same deal. How can you understand until you stop reading and start doing?

Books only take you so far, they only prime your journey and give a basic knowledge. You can attempt to read it all from a book, but how do you know that the book is correct? Just because the other monkeys think it's correct, it doesn't mean that it is. If you don't quieten your mind and rid yourself of the BS preconceptions that are already there, how can the truth get in?

That's the thing with me - I'm a cynical bastard. A book (any book) tells me something (anything), I double-check it.

besson3c · Jul 19, 2010, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

You can read the man page for a linux app until you're blue in the face, but if you want to master it sooner or later you're going to have to jump in with both feet and actually use it.

You can read about guitars and memorise all the chords and scale until your eyes fall out, but you won't be able to play it until you put the book down and put fingers against wood.

Consider sex. No amount of book reading will make up for actual practice, nor prepare you for the feeling the first time.

Consider Zen Buddhism. Same deal. How can you understand until you stop reading and start doing?

Books only take you so far, they only prime your journey and give a basic knowledge. You can attempt to read it from a book, but how do you know that the book is correct? Just because the other monkeys think it's correct, it doesn't mean that it is. If you don't quieten your mind and rid yourself of the BS preconceptions that are already there, how can the truth get in?

I get all of this, but I don't get how you can compartmentalize your heart from your mind this way... How can you go:

Heart: check, this God stuff is great, it really makes me feel good, I'm digging it!
Mind: uhh... what's going on? I'm supposed to celebrate cannibalism?

Doofy · Jul 19, 2010, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I get all of this, but I don't get how you can compartmentalize your heart from your mind this way... How can you go:

Heart: check, this God stuff is great, it really makes me feel good, I'm digging it!
Mind: uhh... what's going on? I'm supposed to celebrate cannibalism?

I don't know that there is a separation of heart and mind. Doesn't feel that way. You simply begin to know. I guess it's like when you're wailing on whatever instrument it is you're proficient at - comes a point when you're in the zone and there's no real separation between thoughts and feelings. You just know where you're going, why you're going there and how. You're not really thinking about it - it's just there, it presents itself.

besson3c · Jul 19, 2010, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I don't know that there is a separation of heart and mind. Doesn't feel that way. You simply begin to know. I guess it's like when you're wailing on whatever instrument it is you're proficient at - comes a point when you're in the zone and there's no real separation between thoughts and feelings. You just know where you're going, why you're going there and how. You're not really thinking about it - it's just there, it presents itself.

Whatever works for you. However, I hope you can appreciate how difficult it is for somebody to come into Christianity while ignoring the stuff that your brain considers nonsense.

Doofy · Jul 19, 2010, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Whatever works for you. However, I hope you can appreciate how difficult it is for somebody to come into Christianity while ignoring the stuff that your brain considers nonsense.

It's difficult for anyone to learn anything about anything if they have pre-conceived ideas that what they're about to learn is nonsense. Hence one must approach all learning with an open heart and open mind.

ebuddy · Jul 19, 2010, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Your main problem is that you assume that I assume. You assume that I'm lower in my understanding of scripture than you are, assume that I don't understand all the ins and outs. Never occurred to you that I might know the whole lot inside out and have simply transcended it. Kind of hard to get past that, ain't it?

Well, I did say "IMO" and certainly my opinion has no more validity than anyone else's at the surface. I did provide some evidence however and was curious what you thought. I'm still curious.

We're talking about the theological differences between two faiths as those who share some doctrinal principles. The doctrine? The Bible. Doofy's point? Get on your knees and ask for the truth. Of course praying is good and while this should be a point of solidarity between all of us, you've managed to use it as some type of weapon in an argument to be... well, argumentative I guess since you've offered little else other than critique of a book you've not shown by your own words to be too familiar with. It follows. You're asking others to put down the books as well. I get that. What's most difficult to get past is the point you're trying to make here. We all know what God BigMac and I are discussing, but you've popped in with your opinionated view of God founded on nothing more than what Doofy thinks, critiquing books you're not reciting properly, then getting all bent out of shape that folks aren't following you.

Why would you not try it?

I have and would highly recommend it to anyone interested in a personal relationship with God. You told me a problem of mine was that I assume your assumptions, but you continue to offer more assumptions. What am I supposed to do? Honestly, it's like when your child comes to you and says; "Daddy, guess a number between 1 and 3,000.". Okay... uh... 7. NO DADDY! NOT 7! Umm... 239? NO! 348! NO! 219?!? NO! Not much of a game is it? Here comes Doofy who enjoys sitting in chairs, eating, and drinking, but doesn't want any part in constructing the chairs, getting the food, or preparing the drinks because of course... he's transcended all that nonsense. I mean it's not really all that difficult to get past that. It is what it is.

Why would any Christian (or non-Christian seeking the truth) not double-check?

Of course they should and many do, I among them although I wouldn't necessarily call it "double-checking" as much as seeking fellowship with God through my worship of Him, encouragement, wisdom, and peace. Interestingly, Bible reading and study both alone and in groups is a form of worship I use as well for the same reasons.

Do you not have a personal relationship with God? Just a social thing to keep you in good standing with your neighbours? Go to church, wear your Sunday best, sing loudly, etc.?

Well... for starters I don't dress all that well for church, but I do play drums loudly for the Praise and Worship group there, and one of the most difficult aspects of Christianity for me is the "social thing" as I'm generally not much for folks. I'm trying to grow in this regard and it is one of the things I pray for. Sometimes I'm moved to tears that God would have me serve Him in a way that brings me so much joy. Particularly considering the type of person I've been. I think about God and filter an awful lot of input through my relationship with Him. I'm in prayer often whether on my knees, standing in line to board a plane, doing yard work, or lying in bed staring at the ceiling...

You want the "gospel of Doofy"? Christianity, without the cultural taint. Those two rules? Red words. Why don't you attempt to find them sometime?

Did the red words not come from God through a culture of mankind? I don't get what you're saying, but this seems to be your default answer to anything you've deemed too complicated to address. You've transcended geography in that you're not subject to any political governance, actions, and leadership. You've transcended any possible financial hardship, music, the Bible... again, it's all the world according to Doofy, but the funny thing is I wouldn't know a thing about Doofy's transcendence had he not written it all down for me to read.

It'd make sense if you were claiming you're alien to this world, but you've got a funny way of showing your transcendence of all this by your contributions on this internet forum.

Let's boil down exactly what you're doing right now, ebuddy. You're siding against me (and all I've said is that you should seek the truth by asking for it - an exact copy of what Jesus states that you should do) with someone who calls Jesus a "bastard" and says he'd be glad to kill Him should He ever show up again.

I'm not siding against you in the least bit Doofy and I'm sorry you've interpreted my posts this way. I'm in absolute agreement with you on the importance of shutting yourself away from the daily noise to get on one's knees and pray and most of my posts have been directed toward BigMac. Where we differ is that I'm also acknowledging the words in red that attest to the Bible's accuracy, historicity, authority, wisdom, and faithfulness as the words provided us by God, including those of the OT. You're getting all bent out of shape that I would challenge your mischaracterization of the God also illustrated in those red words.

If that's proper "normalised" Christianity, you can shove it - I'll stick to being a heretic.

One of the many prayers I've said after thanking God for being God and for being active in my heart and mind is to pray for direction and here I am discussing God with Doofy. Kind of hard to get past that, ain't it?

Big Mac · 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

Oh, you mention original sin now. Why didn't you mention that to start with?

I did in the original paragraph that dealt with that issue, except I didn't spell out "original sin" when I was talking about the Christian claim that Jesus corrected for all sins universally. So you're silent on substance of that issue, I see.

Didn't I just agree to that accusation half a page ago? Do you think it's some kind of insult to me?

You singled out what you claimed to be the tainted American forms of Christianity as forms that particularly differ with your formulation of Christianity. I merely pointed out that mainstream Christianity world-wide doesn't agree with you, and you took particular offense. Didn't you claim you quit this thread a number of posts back? Why is it so important to you to keep responding?

The answers aren't hard to come by. They just might not come immediately. You understand the difference between hard and immediate, no?
These things take time to manifest.

Sure. Next you'll claim my kind is cursed and so hated by your conception of "the true god" that I'll never get given the truth.

And yet more insults.

Doofy, if you think "the true god" is directly speaking words to you then you're psychologically not well, unless you want to proclaim you're a prophet in which case you can be tested accordingly.

I know it's right because people like you are against it. It's that simple.

Uh huh. The vast majority of all practicing Jews, Christians and Muslims would be against you based on what you've been preaching here, Doofy. It's not just me.

No I didn't. Bugger me dude, are you actually trying to live up to the stereotypes or is it just coming naturally?

Lots of anger, Doofy. I don't even know what stereotype you're referring to here. I apparently misread some of the particular claims you've made. This is honestly part of the conversation I thought transpired:

1. There is another person on MacNN who knows and believes in the religion you follow, and that other person will never reveal the secret (that was the firs thing you said)
2. Then you seemingly implied that the other person who knows your religion is actually the one who taught you (to which I astonishingly asked if you were saying you were the student and he was the master);
3. Then you said that your master is someone I called a bastard a number of times (whereas the only person I called a bastard was Jesus because by Christian theology he would be, and I only said that once);
4. To which I asked if you were claiming that Jesus is an undercover member of MacNN, since you implied your teacher is on MacNN and is supposedly Jesus

That was my honest take on what you were describing. Your statements and my understanding of them in that narrow area apparently got muddled through a number of posts, but that was honestly what I took away from what you had posted. It wasn't any attempt on my part to troll you.

No. But in your case it can't hurt, so give it a try. 15lb sledge should do it.

Yeah, as I suspected you'd need me to either do heavy (drug) "experimentation" that would threaten to fry my brain, or cause myself some other form of brain damage in order to contemplate believing as you do.

You know I'm not. I thought my 15,000+ posts here would go some way to displaying some proof that I'm one of the most cynical bastards on the planet. Obviously not, if it suits your argument to imply otherwise.

Cynical as in believing the worst in human nature or having a sneering disbelief in humanity? Or do you mean skeptical?

In truth, Doofy, what I had previously learned about you from your 15,000 posts is that you were a mostly very conservative person, a music creator, an opinionated person and overall a decent person. I didn't get the point that you were cynical or a bastard. I didn't ascribe anything particularly negative to your character. You even sent me very kind PMs on a number of occasions, which didn't at all betray your hatred toward my religion. I only saw more negative traits when I started discussing serious theological defects of Christianity, and I take responsibility for your anger toward me. In truth it's something that I would have kept to myself if I had known ahead of time the animosity it would stir up, but then again I thought that you wouldn't react as harshly toward my words given that you had told me by PM that religious debates wouldn't cause you anger toward me; the only thing that you said would cause you to have problems with me would be if I stabbed you in the back. I honestly had no concept that my posts about seriously limiting copyrights would be construed by you as backstabbing, but it was, and your animosity over my words in that completely different conversation contributed to your animosity toward me for my words of critique against Christianity.

Also for reference, I misread the situation here in large part because I have close Christian friends in the real world who know me well enough to know my full theological outlook. They accept me as a friend in spite of the fact that I view Christianity as idolatry and corruption, and I accept them as friends in spite of the fact that they believe I am going to hell for all eternity because I reject Jesus as a false god. As a result of that relationship, I assumed I could have a politically incorrect, comprehensive debate on the subject with Christians here and that it wouldn't turn into a bloodbath. It turns out that I was only partially right, and of all the participants in the discussion I didn't expect the most violent reaction to come from you Doofy. But prior to these threads I didn't know of your unique brand of religion.

Right now, if I told you what I thought of you I'd get an infraction. So I won't. Use your imagination.

The funny thing is, Doofy, if I tell you what I think of you I won't get an infraction. What does it say about you that you have that amount of anger toward me that you can't tell me what you think of me without violating the rules of MacNN conduct? Why so much hatred?

Here's what I think of you, Doofy: I think you're a generally nice guy, but you're the type of guy who gets very highly offended and obnoxious if any of your sacred cows are threatened (namely your profession and your professed religion). I think that your theology is completely baseless. I think that starting, as you claim to have done, from a position of complete ignorance - a blank slate - and then imagining a deity is speaking solely to you is a laughably ridiculous claim to religious truth. I think, furthermore, that as lpk and ebuddy have pointed out to you, your brand of Christianity doesn't even make sense in a purely Christian sense. I think that your notion that you are abiding by all the supposed words of Jesus found in the Christian canon is flat-out wrong, because some of those "red letter words" affirm the Torah - yes, the five books of Moshe that you scorn. And other portions of those "red letter words" definitely violate your two articulated rules of your religion because they have Jesus saying some very hateful and belligerent things. (Also think for a second about when Jesus is said to have called the Samaritan woman who sought his help - she was called a "dog" compared to Jews.) I think it's fascinating that you burned the books you previously thought were holy because you wanted to operate purely on a mystical level - very odd indeed. I think your denouncements of me, my people, the Torah, the G-d of Israel, etc. are illogical, needlessly hateful, very much hypocritical, and violations of the previously referenced two rules you claim your mystical form of Christianity promulgates. And finally, I think that your venomous reactions toward me say a whole lot about your lack of security in your own beliefs. That's what I think of you, Doofy.

And while I previously regretted that I allowed this interaction to happen, allowing a little more time to pass has shown me that it truly was for the best. As I've often said, I prefer to know what people truly think of me, instead of laboring under pleasant social delusions.