Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Just because there are more serious problems doesn't negate what might be considered the lesser problems.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Those advocating specific religious edicts, strictures, commandments, etc. be hammered into laws that apply to everybody, then they need to be consistent in their advocacy to be taken seriously by me.
If a bunch of fundies wants govt $ for a 'pray the gay away program' but doesn't want to see government porcine disease research zeroed out, or maybe USDA shrimp price supports during gulf oil spills similarly deleted, I will wonder why they are ignoring their own 'all scripture is suitable' rule. If they know better than the god of their sacred writings, those writings aren't all that sacred to them, and even less so to the rest of us.
(May 27, 2014 at 6:52 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Those advocating specific religious edicts, strictures, commandments, etc. be hammered into laws that apply to everybody, then they need to be consistent in their advocacy to be taken seriously by me.
If a bunch of fundies wants govt $ for a 'pray the gay away program' but doesn't want to see government porcine disease research zeroed out, or maybe USDA shrimp price supports during gulf oil spills similarly deleted, I will wonder why they are ignoring their own 'all scripture is suitable' rule. If they know better than the god of their sacred writings, those writings aren't all that sacred to them, and even less so to the rest of us.
I know you were saying something important,but I couldn't follow it , my bad.
Would you be willing to be specific about what you're saying? And rewrite it? thank you..
May 28, 2014 at 2:20 am (This post was last modified: May 28, 2014 at 3:05 am by Creed of Heresy.)
(May 27, 2014 at 6:13 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
Quote:My friend, it's called freedom of speech and freedom to practice your beliefs.
And I have the freedom to tell them to take their fucking god off my property, too.
And I have the freedom to go up to every Christian, Muslim, and Jew I see and tell them they're a bunch of solipsistic tools with delusions of grandeur and importance who would regret wasting their lives on fantasies and fairy tales and the adult equivalents of Santy Claws when they're dead if they (in contradiction with the point here, but bear with me) somehow maintained awareness after death.
But I don't.
It's called not being an arrogant, condescending, disrespectful prick, but what would Christians know about that? They sure have never demonstrated an ability to refrain from being a collective of exactly that, have they? What with, you know, the constant wars of faith, the millenium + centuries-long spewing of/forcing their beliefs [on] everywhere/one they can regardless of peoples' existing beliefs or lack thereof, their arrogance that they alone know the truth about the possibility of an afterlife and just what is needed to get the good version of it despite the same thing being said of a thousand, thousand other systems that say the exact same thing with exactly as much evidence as they've got, the church of True Christians™ (as all Christians are, except for the ones that aren't) torturing people for made up crimes of witchcraft, sorcery, possession, unbelief, adultery, heresy, and apostasy, conducting the Inquisition which for many years committed invasions of privacy that the NSA wishes it could perpetuate and human rights abuses that would make Hitler proud, trying to call their creationist bullshit "science" when it has about as much to do with science as a garbage disposal has to do with herding cattle and yet still trying to force everyone in the US to learn of it regardless of their own beliefs or lack thereof...
Amusing, thinking about it, how you run to excuse the majority of your religions' modern actions in the US by citing the freedoms granted through the SECULAR constitution of the US when throughout history you have never allowed anyone else that kind of thing...
Oh yeah that's another thing Christianity has done throughout history; perpetuate endless amounts of moral, ethical, and intellectual hypocrisy at every turn.
(May 27, 2014 at 6:39 pm)Artur Axmann Wrote: THINK about ...try it.
That's rich. A guy who believes shit because a book exists that says a bunch of that shit that no empirical evidence whatsoever supports in any way and in fact makes claims that are by their very nature are impossible to being prove or recreate or test or even hypothesize, telling someone else to "try to THINK about" things.
I'm sure you try thinking too, of course. Just, you think about things that, in the literal end, will have meant absolutely fuck-all other than that you wasted your finite time and otherwise boundless intellectual and moral potential.
(May 27, 2014 at 6:52 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Those advocating specific religious edicts, strictures, commandments, etc. be hammered into laws that apply to everybody, then they need to be consistent in their advocacy to be taken seriously by me.
If a bunch of fundies wants govt $ for a 'pray the gay away program' but doesn't want to see government porcine disease research zeroed out, or maybe USDA shrimp price supports during gulf oil spills similarly deleted, I will wonder why they are ignoring their own 'all scripture is suitable' rule. If they know better than the god of their sacred writings, those writings aren't all that sacred to them, and even less so to the rest of us.
I know you were saying something important,but I couldn't follow it , my bad.
Would you be willing to be specific about what you're saying? And rewrite it? thank you..
Since the Bible says not to eat shell fish or pork why would fundies want the government to spend money on programs that support those industries?
May 28, 2014 at 8:05 am (This post was last modified: May 28, 2014 at 8:12 am by John V.)
(May 27, 2014 at 4:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Dates to the end of the 5th century and was still being edited centuries later. Somewhat late for your horseshit.
Why? A post-Christianity date helps me. Jews then had reason not to note passages indicating a suffering messiah, but they did so anyway.
Quote:According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (2) nor will he possess supernatural qualities.
LOL. This one is ridiculous. I once debated a Jewish counter-missionary on this topic, and he also made this claim. I asked him to provide the passages that show the messiah would be descended from David. He ignored it. I repeated the question. He dodged it. The reason he didn't want to answer is that some passages regarding descent from David also show that the messiah will be more than just a normal human. You're probably familiar with one yourself:
Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
May 30, 2014 at 12:00 pm (This post was last modified: May 30, 2014 at 12:44 pm by Creed of Heresy.)
Then your Jewish counter-missionary was a moron.
Maimonides devotes much of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19)
That's one of the key flaws of the Trinity. "Not who, but what." Well, if the Christian concept of the Trinity is to be believed (and for anyone with the capacity to call bullshit for what it is, it won't be), then Jesus was God. Except he can't be because the pre-existing declarations are that God is not a man. God does not change his mind, does not change his promises; omniscience and omnipotence are not negotiable:
Numbers 23:19 Wrote:God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
Psalm 89:34 Wrote:I will not violate my covenant or alter what my lips have uttered.
Christies are no strangers to stretching, but the argument I've heard before is that God knew he was going to change his mind all along and that's why he sent himself via his son from himself as his father (Seriously. If you believe in the Trinity, this is what you believe.) to change his own laws, ergo going back on his word, when God never goes back on his word according to the source material from which this fucking apocalyptic tangled mess of bullshit stems from.
Now, as for your quotation, bravo, you can quote the old testament. Pity you don't know "context," huh?
Quote:
Christians see the above verses from Isaiah 9 to be speaking of Jesus, who came into the world as a child. However, after having read the above quotation, a few questions should come to mind.
When did Jesus ever run any government?
When was Jesus ever called a Wonderful Counselor, or a Mighty Gd, or an Everlasting Father, or a Prince of Peace? Jesus was never called by any of these names anywhere in the Christians' New Testament and not at all in his own lifetime.
Christians always seem to misunderstand this quotation. This is because they do not understand Hebrew, nor do they understand names, nor do they understand Hebrew names.
First, let us understand names. In most languages, every name has a meaning. The name 'Anthony' means 'priceless' and the name 'Alexander' means 'protector.' If we were to give a child the first and middle names of Anthony Alexander, would that mean that we are saying that this child is a 'priceless protector?' Would we call out to them, 'Hey, Priceless Protector, how are you?' Of course not.
Hebrew names sometimes say something about Gd. The name Michael means 'who is like Gd.' The name Elihu means 'my Gd is He,' or 'He is my Gd.' The name Immanuel means 'Gd is with us,' just to give a few examples. If someone has the name, Elihu, (again, meaning 'He is my Gd') would that mean that the human being known as Elihu is Gd? These names say something about Gd, even though they are the names of ordinary human beings. A better translation to the verse in question might be:
...and his name will be called, 'A wonderful counselor is the mighty Gd, an everlasting father is the ruler of peace.'
This means that there are really only two Hebrew names in the verse, which are given to a human being and not to a divine being, even though the names make a statement about Gd. Those names, like Anthony Alexander in our example above, would be 'Pele Yoetz El Gibor Avi Ad Sar Shalom.' The way it is written in the original Hebrew, the names would be hyphenated as 'Pele-Yoetz-El-Gibor' and 'Avi-Ad-Sar-Shalom.' Lengthy names like these were not uncommon in the Bible, and in Isaiah specifically. For example, in Isaiah 8:3, we find the name, 'Maher-shalal-chash-baz,' which means 'the spoil speeds, the prey hastens.'
But let us suppose that this verse really did contain four names. How well would they apply to Jesus? Is this a case where at first the description of the person described in Isaiah 9:6-7 sounds like the story of Jesus, but, on closer examination, it isn't?
'Wonderful Counselor'
In the Christian's New Testament we find two stories about Jesus that certainly do not describe him as a Wonderful Counselor:
Another of the disciples said to him, 'Lord, let me first go and bury my father.' But Jesus said to him, 'Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.' [Matthew 8:21]
What kind of 'Wonderful Counselor' would tell a man who had recently lost his beloved father not to see to his father's funeral?
When he had said this, one of the officers standing by struck Jesus with his hand, saying, 'Is that how you answer the high priest?' Jesus answered him, 'If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?' [John 18:22-23]
Everyone is familiar with the quotation from Jesus, 'Do not resist one who is evil, but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.' [Matthew 5:39] In the quotation above from John 18, Jesus does not turn his other cheek to the one who struck him, but rebukes him instead. One who says one thing but does another is called a hypocrite, and how can a hypocrite be a 'Wonderful Counselor?'
'Mighty Gd.'
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?' that is, 'My Gd, My Gd, why hast thou forsaken me?' [Matthew 27:46]
If Jesus were the 'Mighty Gd,' why would he have to call upon another as Gd in order to save him? How can Gd forsake himself? This also denies the very idea of a trinity, and shows how Jesus does not fit the description of the Isaiah 9 quotation.
And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, Gd: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. [Matthew 19:16-17]
In the above verses, Jesus distinguishes between himself and Gd. How could he have been the 'Mighty Gd,' if he himself made a distinction between himself and Gd? If Jesus knew that only Gd is good, and that he should not be called good, then Jesus knew that Jesus was not Gd.
'Everlasting Father'
In the trinity, Jesus is the son, and not the Father. He cannot be both at the same time. As a matter of fact, Jesus himself showed that he was not the Father, and claimed not to have the same will, or the same knowledge as the Father.
And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, 'My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.' [Matthew 26:39]
Jesus calls the One to whom he prayed his Father, so how can Jesus be 'the Everlasting Father,' if he called another his Father? How could Jesus be the Father if the will of Jesus is not the same as the will of the Father? This denies the very idea of the trinity.
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. [Mark 13:32]
In the above verse, Jesus claims there is something that he does not know, but that only the Father knows. So how can Jesus, 'the son,' also be the Father if their knowledge is not the same?
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my Gd, and your Gd. [John 20:17]
How can the Father ascend to Himself? In the above verse, Jesus not only distinguishes between himself and his Father, but he also makes it sound as though the relationship that he has with Gd, 'The Father,' is exactly the same relationship that all people have with Gd, who is, in fact, the Father of all.
'Prince of Peace'
First of all, this is a mistranslation. The words in the original Hebrew are, 'sar shalom.' The word 'sar' does not mean 'prince,' it means 'ruler.' Now, one might say that a 'prince' is a 'ruler.' However, the reason why the Christians choose the word 'prince' instead of the word 'ruler' in Christian translations is that the word 'prince' makes one think that the original verse is speaking of a 'son of the king,' which in the Christian mind alludes to Jesus whom they believe to have been the son of Gd, the King. However, the word is 'ruler,' and not 'prince.' 'Prince' in Hebrew is 'nasee' and not 'sar.' The Christian translators intentionally chose the English word 'prince' to lead the reader into thinking about Jesus.
In the Christian's New Testament, we also find a quotation which certainly does not show Jesus to have been a 'ruler' or even a 'prince of peace.'
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. [Matthew 10:34-36]
How could anyone who said such a thing be considered a prince or ruler of peace? How could anyone who said such a thing have been the Messiah? We know that the true Messiah will bring an everlasting peace and, along with Elijah the Prophet, will bring families closer to each other and not further apart (see Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:1-4, and Malachi 4:5).
I have already stated that Christians rarely include verse 7 when they quote Isaiah chapter 9. The reason is that in verse 7 it states, 'Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end.' Perhaps they do not quote verse 7 because Jesus never brought peace to the world, nor did he ever intend to, as the above quotation from Matthew 10:34-36 shows.
Jesus was also a violent man, and neither a 'Prince of Peace,' nor even a 'Ruler of Peace.' There are other verses in the Christian's New Testament that indicate this. Here are two more:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. [Luke 19:27]
The verse above comes at the end of a parable that Jesus told, of a man that leaves his land to go to be anointed as the King. When he comes back to his land, he says the above verse. Every single Christian commentator claims that Jesus was referring to himself as the man who left his land to be anointed King, and so in his own parable, Jesus is saying the above, asking that those who do not wish to have him reign over them be murdered in front of him.
In the verse, below, Jesus tells his followers to go and buy a sword.
And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. [Luke 22:35]
We have shown from quotations from the Christian's New Testament that Jesus was not a 'Wonderful Counselor, Jesus was not a 'Mighty Gd,' Jesus was not an 'Everlasting Father,' nor was Jesus a 'Prince of Peace' or even a 'Ruler of Peace,' in spite of how Christians wish to interpret the original verses from Isaiah 9:6-7.
So, according to the Jewish interpretation, who is Isaiah 9:6-7 speaking about?
According to Judaism, the answer is in the names chosen. The name 'Hezekiah' which in Hebrew is 'Chizkiyah' comes from the words 'chazak' and 'Ya.' 'Chazak' means 'strong' or 'mighty' and 'Ya' is the shortened name for Gd used as a suffix. Many might recognize the Ya' in the word, 'halleluyah' which means,'praise Gd.' Judaism believes that Isaiah 9:6-7 refers to Hezekiah, who reigned for almost 30 years. The name Hezekiah, Chizkiyah, is the same name in meaning, as one finds in the verses from Isaiah 9:6-7, a 'Mighty Gd.'
(May 30, 2014 at 12:00 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Then your Jewish counter-missionary was a moron.
Maimonides devotes much of the "Guide for the Perplexed" to the fundamental idea that God is incorporeal, meaning that He assumes no physical form. God is Eternal, above time. He is Infinite, beyond space. He cannot be born, and cannot die. Saying that God assumes human form makes God small, diminishing both His unity and His divinity. As the Torah says: "God is not a mortal" (Numbers 23:19)
Rambam said regarding the messiah, "there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin." This is contrary to your point that "According to Jewish sources, the Messiah will be born of human parents and possess normal physical attributes like other people. He will not be a demi-god, (2) nor will he possess supernatural qualities."
"Jewish sources" have conflicting views on the messiah. When you go to sites that are writing against Christianity, you only hear one side.
Quote:Now, as for your quotation, bravo, you can quote the old testament. Pity you don't know "context," huh?
And as for yours, bravo, you can C&P from Jewish sites which present one side of Jewish thought in an attempt to refute Christian interpretation.
