Biblical Discussion

[Arch-hereticK]

It is the universal principal of reciprosity that will set us free from the oppression of our theology spouting over-lords.

The revolution has begun.

[Monarchist]

It is the universal principal of reciprosity that will set us free from the oppression of our theology spouting over-lords.

The revolution has begun.

Yes, because Jesus had nothing to do with universal reciprocity. Have you ever read the Bible, my friend?

[Strelok]

Yes, because Jesus had nothing to do with universal reciprocity. Have you ever read the Bible, my friend?

The book has an incosistent plot.

[Arch-hereticK]

Yes, because Jesus had nothing to do with universal reciprocity. Have you ever read the Bible, my friend?

Are you making the assertion that it didn't exist before Jesus?
Yes, I have read the bible, more than once. I was even an intern working with the team restoring the book of Kells last year.

[Monarchist]

Are you making the assertion that it didn't exist before Jesus?

Not at all! I was saying what I said because you gave "theological tyranny" as an opposite value to universal reciprocity, but the theology they teach is ABOUT universal reciprocity. You just don't like authority and absolute values.

Yes, I have read the bible, more than once. I was even an intern working with the team restoring the book of Kells last year.

Perhaps you missed the bit where Jesus said what you think Christians don't believe?

The book has an incosistent plot.

Of course it does, because some of it is prophecy, some is poetry, some is song, some is history, and some is instruction in law and morality. What do you expect, a roller-coaster of a novel, complete with sizzling gypsies? It's supposed to be the Word of God, not a trailer trash time-waster.

[Strelok]

Of course it does, because some of it is prophecy, some is poetry, some is song, some is history, and some is instruction in law and morality. What do you expect, a roller-coaster of a novel, complete with sizzling gypsies?

It was a joke.

It's supposed to be the Word of God

Like the Qu'Ran. LOTR is the uber divine word of the flying spaghetti monster. The story with Frodo and the Ring is all metaphorical, you see.

[Arch-hereticK]

Not at all! I was saying what I said because you gave "theological tyranny" as an opposite value to universal reciprocity,

Being told to "be good or else" is the opposite of the principal of reciprosity.

but the theology they teach is ABOUT universal reciprocity.

Love thy enemy and turn the other cheek and

You just don't like authority and absolute values.

I dislike immoral and barbaric values (not that all christian values are barbaric) and corrupting concepts like absolute authority.

Perhaps you missed the bit where Jesus said what you think Christians don't believe?

Have you read leviticus?
18:19. It's not unique to christianity you know.

[Monarchist]

Like the Qu'Ran. LOTR is the uber divine word of the flying spaghetti monster. The story with Frodo and the Ring is all metaphorical, you see.

Ironically, Professor Tolkien was an incredibly devout Catholic who went to Confession once every week, and took Holy Communion every day. He was a tremendously kind and gentle person, but full of moral absolutism.

Being told to "be good or else" is the opposite of the principal of reciprosity.

No it isn't, actually. Universal reciprocity consists in God telling us to be good to each other, and thus goodness is universally reciprocated. God is not a human being, and so the laws from Him instructing each of us don't exactly apply. "Be good or else" is a noble urge, because our souls tell us that even before we are 12 years old. There is a natural law in every human being, and each of us knows what is wrong by instinctive feeling. Whether this comes from ape-evolution or God, it's still there. When the natural law says "be good or else" and two given people follow it, they reciprocate each others' good deeds and good will to each other.

Love thy enemy and turn the other cheek and

I pray for every atheist I meet every night. Perhaps it would be best not to admit this and boast in that manner, but I pray that God give atheists His joy and glorious light, so they can be happier. Atheists are my enemy, but I love all of you deep down, for there is not one worthless human. Do you see problems? Anyone who does not love his enemy deep down, or who declares unjust wars and acts like a jerk, is simply not a Christian no matter how much he says he is. Label has nothing to do with action.

I dislike immoral and barbaric values (not that all christian values are barbaric) and corrupting concepts like absolute authority.

Where is the immoral barbarism? You're being awfully vague.

Have you read leviticus?
18:19. It's not unique to christianity you know.

18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

Perhaps you're referring to that one? 18:19 really has nothing to do with this subject matter, as far as I can tell. What, exactly, is wrong with that (if that's the verse you meant)?

[basics]

" Have you read leviticus? 18:19. It's not unique to christianity you know."

Arch_hereticK,

" Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness."

The line is obviously to do with the time of the woman's month, or periods. This was peculiar to the Israelites then as well as now if they should perhaps be still living under Law. A woman who seeped blood was considered unclean and therefore was not to be touched until she had finished her period and had for eight days, I think, ceremonially washed herself. I don't know of any other religion that had this law.

For Christians who have been washed clean Spiritually from the Law, and that includes from out of these early Israelites, the Law does not apply anymore. The argument is therefore is it beneficial to them that they indulge in sex before the woman has finished her period to which it may be said it is not. Why so? Because by our fulfillment through the blood of Christ to the Law it is therefore appropriate that we by example do not make a fool of it or diminish it in any way.

[cenkiss]

Yes, because Jesus had nothing to do with universal reciprocity. Have you ever read the Bible, my friend?

What is bible?Can you eat it?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Monarchist do you believe in hell or gehhena?

[Senno]

Split off from "My Philosophy" thread.

If you object to the title, please PM a suggested one, and it can be changed.

Senno

[Arch-hereticK]

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors' ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment." The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords." "That is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

Yes bombing Dresden was way over the line, killing women and children and keeping virgins for your men is equally barbaric.

Spare me your relative morality, mass murder of civilians is wrong full-stop, even if your false gods tell you otherwise.

[Arch-hereticK]

Why no reply basics?

Your silence is flattering, but I know you have something to say.