Members banned from this thread: Pragmatist


Page 91 of 171 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101141 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 1703
Thanks Tree261Thanks

Thread: Atheist answer to the 10 Commandments: 10 Rational positions.

  1. #901
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    LOL.

    I am offended that ian understands god's command and god's commandment as two entirely separate things and yet fails to understand the metaphysical implications of the trinity.

    If one truly wanted a succinct explanation of the trinity, one need only read john:

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

    Don't tell me you haven't come across this in your 25 years of christian study.
    Nooooooooo..... In 25 years of Christianity, I never once read the First fucking chapter of the Gospel of John! Wait. Are you telling me that Christians are supposed to read the Gospels?!?!?! Well, fuck me!!!! That must be what I did wrong!!!!!

  2. #902
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Making it available to read does not mean it is applicable to everyone, nor that G-d was speaking to everyone. Your conclusion simply does not follow.

    Not even Wikipedia's use of a piece of Tractate Megillah supports your conclusion, as the Mishnah that that particular Gemara is discussing has nothing to do with what you are talking about.
    My statement was not about application, rather, whether the old testament was meant for someone else's CONTEMPLATION (and you are free to go back to the thread to see for yourself).

    No one is arguing that everyone ought to be bound by jewish moral law -- least of all, christians.

    In any case, your posts have meandered hopelessly far from my original statement. As far as christians are concerned, jesus spoke to everyone and has established a new covenant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    It is simply insane for someone who has not studied the Talmud (or any portion of it) with an Orthodox rabbi to decontextualize it and use it to justify a Xian interpretation.
    Do you mean the way you give opinions regarding the trinity and peddle it as fact?
    Last edited by kingrat; 12th January 2018 at 01:17 AM.

  3. #903
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Well, yes, but is simply tautological.
    Why tautological? Halakha is jewish law and its practical application in everyday life, is it not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    No, I have not. It is applied to new situations, sure, but that is not a "change[] according to rabbinic interpretation." That is a Xian rendering as Xianity denies there was ever an oral Torah to begin with.
    Ok then. It is applied to new situations (not changed). What is that if not rabbinic interpretation, hmmm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    No, it is not. Sabbath restrictions have always been "excused" for pikuach nefesh - in which case, in fact, it is required to break those or any other restrictions.
    How about this one?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drivin...abbat#Orthodox

    The Conservative Movement examined the issue of driving on Shabbat during the 1950s and decided to allow limited use of the automobile strictly for the purpose of attending synagogue services.[14] The need to reexamine the ruling came in response to demographic shifts, as many Jews were moving into suburban communities and no longer in walking distance of their synagogues. In accordance with these rulings, driving is not permitted for any other reasons, including attendance at a social function at the synagogue that has no prayer involved (such as a Bar or Bat Mitzvah reception), as doing so is viewed as serving man and not God. Nevertheless, many Conservative Jews take this leniency further to allow driving for almost any reason they wish. Some Conservative Jews who follow a more stringent practice will refrain from driving at all during Shabbat, or will reserve driving for rare occasions for which they find it unavoidable.[15]

    As I said, rabbinic interpretation.

  4. #904
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    That does not make sense. G-d is "One." Says so right there in the Torah, which precludes a trinitarian deity.
    Hence a mystery. It is a revealed truth that is at the foundation of christian FAITH. Are you now questioning the nature of faith? Because if you are, then every exposition you made about the torah comes under question also.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    That does not fit the Torah, in which G-d is One. Furthermore, one of those "manifestations" is human, and the Torah also expressly provides that G-d is not a human being.
    ARe you really interested in the theology of the trinity or are you just being obtuse?

    Certain aspects of the law view a married couple as a single person, does it not? Extrapolate this reasoning to a metaphysical level and perhaps, you might find a glimpse of what the trinity is about.

    And no, the theological justification for the trinity does not come from the old testament.

  5. #905
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Yes, it does. Xians seek to "interpret" the Tanakh in such a way as to justify the Xian belief that Jesus was the moshiach spoken of therein.

    Irrelevant. The question is whether YOU know more about the meaning of ancient text better than a christian expert in hermeneutics? Clearly, you don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    It would more analogous to saying the Chinese cannot know the intricacies of the American Constitution better than the U.S. Supreme Court throughout its history.

    Is it your contention that it is outside the realm of possibility that a chinese become the chief justice of the scotus?

    But of course, this is nothing more than your dishonesty working overtime, since apparently, you know more about the trinity than christian theologians throughout history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    It is not about what it means "to me." It is about what it means, according to G-d and Jewish scholars throughout the millenia.
    Its not even about jewish scholars. Jewish scholars wrote the septuagint lxx and the masoretic texts and still, according to you, they do not agree.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    I do not believe you are. You are talking about what Xians and Xianity hold the Tanakh means, and framing it as an academic exercise.
    Believe what you must. That was the point of my question.

  6. #906
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    You are wrong, particularly in this context. I was referring to something very specific that Michael J was talking about, which was in response to something Isalexi said about something aboutenough was saying. None of it had anything to do with how Xians generally approach health care or the healing of illnesses.
    It has something to do with a handful of fundamentalist christians preferring prayer over medical treatment. Apparently, ultra-orthodox jews are worse, since their refusal to get vaccinated resulted in an outbreak of disease.

    But of course, you make it sound like every jew is above this religious nonsense.
    Last edited by kingrat; 12th January 2018 at 02:13 AM.

  7. #907
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    Be offended all you wish. You simply fail to recognize your own offensiveness.
    Everyone I reply to gets exactly the same offensiveness they dish out.

  8. #908
    Established Member
    Joined
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    7,075
    Thanks
    306

    From
    Irrelevant
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Nooooooooo..... In 25 years of Christianity, I never once read the First fucking chapter of the Gospel of John! Wait. Are you telling me that Christians are supposed to read the Gospels?!?!?! Well, fuck me!!!! That must be what I did wrong!!!!!
    There you go. Your honesty is refreshing -- even if you try to pass it off as sarcasm.

  9. #909
    Veteran Member Czernobog's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    35,477
    Thanks
    17702

    From
    Phoenix, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by kingrat View Post
    There you go. Your honesty is refreshing -- even if you try to pass it off as sarcasm.
    And sanctimonious arrogance like this is why I have you on ignore. Have fun with your self-congratulatory masturbation. I'm done.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  10. #910
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    54,288
    Thanks
    2921

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael J View Post
    That makes no sense at all. The Moon landing isn't a supernatural event. Astronauts are real, and so are the ships they traveled in. The Moon is also real. Have you been looking up into the night sky recently?

    You made the same Appeal to Possibility fallacy that you did earlier about the photos and footage about the Moon landing.

    You also made a Fallacy of Omission where you ignored all of the many Moon rocks they brought back and everything else that Czernobog explained to you.
    I haven’t been to the Moon, so to me its not real. You are just going by pictures and rocks provided by NASA. You tell me the Bible can’t prove itself, use the same logic with NASA.

Similar Threads

  1. Rational reason to believe in God?
    By Communist Rationalist in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 26th July 2013, 09:01 PM
  2. Ask the Last Rational Man
    By JayMick in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 3rd February 2012, 04:41 PM
  3. Is there a Rational Ground for Morality?
    By coberst in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10th April 2009, 12:20 AM
  4. Belief in God is rational
    By Vetruvius in forum Philosophy and Religion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 18th February 2009, 07:56 AM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed