(February 21, 2010 at 9:50 pm)Shell B Wrote: So, it's not ALL about the bible?

Nope, like I said, there's an Oral Torah too. The Hasidic Jews also have Kabbalistic texts.

---

(February 21, 2010 at 9:49 pm)theVOID Wrote:

(February 21, 2010 at 9:46 pm)Alex Wrote: Or contained in the codifications of the Oral Torah, yes, since that's pretty much the entire Jewish religious law right there.

And how many of the laws in the Torah do you reject?

I'm Modern Orthodox, so not many.

And how do you know which Biblical laws to reject?

(February 21, 2010 at 10:57 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(February 21, 2010 at 8:30 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Sorry I didn't realise you were addressing irrationally held belief in Christianity... I thought you were addressing all of us

Didn't I show you statistics of Christians who favor creationism in the US and UK?

Weren't they much more than the tiny minority you said they were?

And that is of any relevance WHY?

(February 21, 2010 at 9:36 pm)Shell B Wrote:

Quote: I'm not surprised.

It's not really a victory when you start spewing irrelevant 'points' and it becomes so convoluted I give up.

Oh, for pity's sake, Alex. You gave up because you didn't fucking get it.

No not really. As I saw the discussion develop you pulled more and more issues into the argument that just muddled the conversation. I don't blame Alex for dropping that part of the conversation, it was really getting nowhere fast. It is a trait I see quite often and I know it is not done intentionally but all it does is complicate an argument that is already not the easiest one to follow.

I regret that I am joining this thread so late. Perusing the last 15 pages has shown me the inevitable abundance of delusion interrupted by futile interjections of clarity.

Thanks Puckett. Whatever your position, this is the common observation here at AF

I've gathered as much. lol My position on this specific issue is clear as I am the author of the 50 questions.

Ah I see. Good luck with the loony hunting then!

Quote:25 - In the book of Luke chapter 19 verse 27, Jesus says, "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." This seems pretty clear that Jesus would have Christians kill all non-believers. How do you explain this? Convert them or kill them, right?

This one stands out as particularly dumb. Jesus was telling a story from a the perspective of a king, who reportedly commanded those killed who were against him. The message would be: use your gift because squandering it will result in your own death.

I understand the meaning of the parable, but it seems to me that the parable itself ends at verse 25 and Jesus takes over from there. Verse 26 and 27 are as follows:

26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.

27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Notice at the statement in bold at the beginning of verse 25. That very statement denotes that the parable has been told and Jesus is giving his meaning of the parable as it relates to him and 'the father'.

(February 22, 2010 at 5:08 am)leo-rcc Wrote:

(February 21, 2010 at 9:36 pm)Shell B Wrote:

Quote: I'm not surprised.

It's not really a victory when you start spewing irrelevant 'points' and it becomes so convoluted I give up.

Oh, for pity's sake, Alex. You gave up because you didn't fucking get it.

No not really. As I saw the discussion develop you pulled more and more issues into the argument that just muddled the conversation. I don't blame Alex for dropping that part of the conversation, it was really getting nowhere fast. It is a trait I see quite often and I know it is not done intentionally but all it does is complicate an argument that is already not the easiest one to follow.

I was attempting (obviously to no avail) to make the point that the entire thing was not about the bible. It was done intentionally, with the hope that he would see that I was not talking about the bible. The entire subject of pre-marital sex was brought up by me because he dramatically brought murder into the conversation and I said something along the lines of taking it down a notch and considering pre-marital sex. It was the only issue I brought into the conversation and I did it to make a point.