QUOTE(☞Tomber☜ @ Sep 8 2010, 08:43 PM)
I felt like I was playing a game of chess and hoping you wouldn't see I left that open, actually. I would say that was a knight.
I wish you felt different about it, Vagrant, but there's not much I can say. I am glad you did give it a run. I really don't have a problem with any of the above except for the part about Jesus changing the legality of Leviticus in any way. Unfortunately that is both a key issue and rather vague to me, please expand on that preferably with direct sources or examples. Jesus doesn't say not to sacrifice, he just makes it unnecessary. Jesus came and cleared up misinterpretations, but did not remove any practices.
Well the dietary laws are spread out in leviticus (chapter 11) and deuteronomy (chapter 14). You're familiar with them I'm sure. God states what is clean and unclean and instructs that unclean animals are not to be eaten. Jesus then says, in the book of matthew somewhere, that it is what comes out of a man that makes him clean or unclean, not what he eats. Now, theories abound as to the reasons why the unclean animals were called as they were, but regardless of the possible historical and scientific reasons (contagions, lack of adequate storage technologies, etc.), it is handed down to moses, from God, at mount Sinai, as Law. Paul, I'm relatively sure, had a lot to say about those laws.
It may seem like a small thing, but the two statements are in direct opposition to one another. Christians view jewish law as divided into moral, social, and dietary laws, and claim, usually, that only the 'ceremonial' laws were 'fulfilled' by jesus. However, there was no such distinction and to even modern orthodox jews there is no such thing as ceremonial law - all laws are Gods Laws and are immutable. You yourself mention that jesus came to fulfill the law, but while there are several passages in the tanakh regarding some eventual savior (of the jewish people specifically), nothing says that he will some how abolish or fulfill Gods Law and absolve mankind of the need to follow it. Talmudic law wasn't about absolution for original sin, it was about living righteously in the eyes of God.
So, jesus did remove practices. After saying the law would not be changed at all, in even the slightest way. Paul later on says lots of stuff that is debatable whether or not it conflicts with Jesus' teachings. Gnostic Christians tend to toss a lot of that and focus on Jesus' own specific teachings.
QUOTE
"Christ's as well if he did not intend for the law to be changed, all christians are unfit for Gods presence"
yes exactly. They were all unfit because they were failing to uphold the law properly, that is why he came. To offer himself as a sacrifice instead of any animals.
Er, no. There is no indication of that, nor any prophecy regarding that as Jesus' purpose. Animal sacrifice served many different purposes in the ancient jewish tradition, including feeding the clergy, who did everything they did for free. It wasn't about absolution, again, it was about pleasing God. Only Jesus' own words seem to imply this, and the letters from his supposed followers. So that is a debatable point without a lot of support. Whether Jesus was in fact the messiah, for instance, is a point for which there is a fair amount of support - though, granted, the prophesies that might have suggested he was the messiah were well known, and there are a few passages that suggest that Jesus' own family thought he was crazy.
QUOTE
"Buddhism, some sects, for instance, does not require a go between or physical acts." .....wait a minute I thought it required you to "... uphold the 8 noble truths." ah yup there it is.
That's two less than the God of Abraham requires.
QUOTE
Also in the Torah it is not written that God will for here on out quit giving new laws, throughout the first five books God continues to institute new laws in a chronological manner.
The Torah is internally consistent - there is very little inconsistency in the old testament, and there are volumes of 'canonical' talmudic literature clarifying points to a finely tuned legal system founded on the premise that the core laws were handed down from God Himself. Although there are in general cases in which there are specific conditional 'loopholes' here and there based on all manner of situations and conflicts such as following one law where two actually apply, but there is scriptural support for these conditionals. Throughout, however, it is stated, "This is the Law of the Lord thy God," and "Saieth the Lord," and "Forever unto the ages." Etc. It is made explicitly clear that the law is intended to endure forever, and that only the children of Israel are righteous before the lord because of it, as well as those that come unto the Law.
This makes the vast inconsistency across the new testament even MORE internally inconsistent because instead of just chucking the old testament, the case was made that christians were simply living a 'new' covenant with God. God handed his covenant, the original one, to moses supposedly in person. But the christians get a middle man? God in the body of a Man this time? In comparison, that's kind of suspect. The bible also makes it fairly clear that magical practices in general are forbidden to the faithful, and the overwhelming interpretational trend is that this is so - yet you seem to have found some loophole for yourself so apparently there is wiggle room depending on how you want to read the book.
I am genuinely happy that you were able to achieve the spiritual experience through this path. Personally I think it is possible to achieve that experience through a religion centered around Cheetos if one is earnest in his desire. Sometimes we need religion as a catalyst for that honest desire, and there are many that are readily available. For one religion to assert that it is the correct religion, regardless of the internal inconsistencies of that religion, is to simply deny that anyone outside of that religion is able to have that spiritual experience. That I, as a pagan, am wrong in my beliefs, that my experience is a Lie (presumably from the satan/the devil, etc). Even though not all christians report experiencing the Divine presence at all (must be luke warm christians).
I'm not out to deconvert you, or whatever the word would be, because I don't care how you worship. And in this subject, there can be no end to the debate unless it is simply stated to be the end of the debate. What I will say though, is that you yourself must decide, ultimately, whether or not you have in fact experienced God through your chosen religion, or not. The Divine experience alters you permanently. You say it is hard being a christian, and I get that. It is sometimes hard for me to take the next step in my own personal spiritual path. But, at each degree of connection between myself and the Divine that I recognize as such, my path becomes easier and easier. The temptations become less, the compassion grows, the ability to live life intentionally crystallizes. I simply don't want the things that distracted me in the past. Meanwhile, even the most fervent and outspoken christians - maybe a minority in the public eye - are corrupted and caught in that corruption for all to see. I guess the God of Abraham didn't protect them from temptation? Maybe the lease on their hearts was up? It's not that I expect christians to be incorruptible, no one is such a person. But, all the evidence would seem to suggest that, if all wickedness is temptation, and temptation is the devil's domain, and you ask your God to protect you from temptation... well, for a God that supposedly doesn't let go, it seems like it happens often enough to be a concern.
Maybe as a 'true' christian, you will fare better.
peace
Us Church To Burn Qurans On 9/11, This is disgusting...
monkman418 Us Church To Burn Qurans On 9/11 Sep 7 2010, 03:06 PM
Sep 7 2010, 03:06 PM
