Jews are religious believers too. At least the ones who are not atheists.
Rumor has it that there are more atheist Jews in Israel than religious Jews.
And thank G-d Jews in the US aren’t allowed to vote.
“The Skeptical Zone” is decidedly anti-Christ.
Is it equally anti-Jewish?
If not, why not?
lol
Ah, good honest Christians you mean? And by “the folks” you of course mean “the entire Church”.
You asked a question why “folks” expect things in return for their worship. I answered. You get personally offended. That’s pathetic.
I think it Fifth could learn anything about religion, it would be that the structure of faith is and always has been designed to support a priesthood. And specialists who are clever enough to obfuscate the meaning of “is,” and other mysteries.
Yes, we touched on that at the very start I believe. It seems that fifth does not realize that in a prior age his claims of “revelation” would have, if accepted, set him up for a comfortable life, a life unlike the peons toiling to support that life.
These days, it’s just another preacher on the internet.
Wow how could anyone be so completely mistaken?
In Christianity unlike “religion” everyone is a priest and we have a single High Priest who will never be removed from office.
quote:
and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
(Rev 1:5-6)
and
Now if perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, rather than one named after the order of Aaron? For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well. For the one of whom these things are spoken belonged to another tribe, from which no one has ever served at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, and in connection with that tribe Moses said nothing about priests. This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
(Heb 7:11-19)
and
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
(Heb 4:14-16)
end quote:
peace
How so?
peace
Apparently you need to study some history
peace
So having established that God is not some grey bearded old man in the sky who occasionally zots people at random, we are left with the question of who gets to elucidate the rules and who gets to enforce them.
I see the theists have their hands raised.
Alas, Western democracies, and quite a few non western non democracies, have decided that the rules will mostly be secular and will take the form of laws.
Do go on.
You are a priest, Fifth. Make no mistake about that. If you were content with simply obeying Jesus, you would be out among the poor. Instead, you are lecturing and interpreting. By your avocation we know you.
What rot. You don’t even understand your own religion. I don’t recall undergoing the Rite of Ordination.
It’s called The priesthood of all believers.
The old priesthood was based on the notion that uneducated riffraff were not capable of correctly reading the Bible. Hence the absence of translations.
Philosophical theology seems to be an equivalent stance.
All been explained at least thrice in my previous posts on this and other threads involving presuppositions.
Oh, right you are. I don’t have an extensive background in this religious nonsense, given it’s all made up I never felt the urge to study it in depth.
Yes, that great authority Luther alluded to a priesthood of all believers, and so he and the hierarchy of Lutheranism were believed in this and the other matters that they said were truth.
The clerics didn’t go away, however. Presup preachers can make a good living selling their pomo religion.
Glen Davidson
Which is fine, but seems to me fmm includes non-believers in there too. fmm?
This will get a little erudite and pedantic but
In a sense you as a nonbeliever is a priest. Your purpose in this world is to serve as a mediator between the creation and the creator. Whether you are fulfilling that purpose is a another matter.
peace
I must have missed it in all the focus on truth.
I understood you to say that knowledge was justified true belief and that you presupposed the existence of truth. That is fine as far as it goes
You can know (P) just in case (P) is true and you are justified in believing it to be true
The question now is justification, How can a you be justified in claiming that what seems true from your limited subjective perspective is indeed objectively true?
“I don’t know” is a acceptable answer
peace
What do you think should happen to those people?
I suppose they should loose their job if they refuse to fulfill the associated responsibilities.
Would you not agree?
peace
So the “job” is to serve as a mediator between the creation and the creator.
I asked what should happen to the people who are not doing that job
I understand that to mean you would like those people to die, no other interpretation makes sense to me. In what other sense do you mean “lose their job”?
It seems quite clear. According to you my purpose in this world is to serve as a mediator between the creation and the creator. That’s my “job”. And I should lose that job if I’m not fulfilling that purpose. I.E. die.
And so I ask again, what color star would you like those people to wear who are “not doing their job” so you can identify them clearly?
Wow you are a harsh boss. I’m glad I don’t work for you. Would you really automatically kill an employee who refused to do his job?
I can think of lots of ways to loose the job of mediator short of death.
for example
quote:
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
(Rom 1:28)
end quote:
peace
Yet the Gentiles know that God’s righteous decree means death for those who practice such sin.
It’s not about me, it’s about what your god wants
There are plenty of other examples of people refusing to do their “job” as seen by your god and paying for it with their lives.
If you want to carry on exchanging bible verses, fine, but if you can explain what
actually means in practice that would be super.
It is a presupposition of mine that perceptions and emotions carry some bit of initial, defeasible warrant of the truth of what they seem to convey. E.g., if I think I see something that looks blue in front of me (and have no beliefs involving something inconsistent with there being something blue in front of me), I have some evidence that there is something that is blue in front of me. All else equal, then, it is reasonable to believe that there is something blue in front of me: I’m justified in that belief.
The text goes into pretty great length explaining itself. You can read it same as me
actually the text does not say that.
quote:
Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
(Rom 1:32)
end quote:
I’m sure glad I don’t get what I deserve how about you?
Peace
Actually you have some evidence that there is something that appears to you to be blue in front of you.
You are making a pretty big leap from “seems to be blue” to “is blue”
I hate to unleash the bot again but
How do you know that what appears to you is actually reality?
peace
So you presuppose that all perceptions and emotions have warrant even mistaken ones?
Is this a correct characterization of your view?
When a Boltzmann brain perceives that there is imagined milk in an imagined refrigerator do his perceptions have objective warrant?
peace
Huh? The text is a sentence. It explains itself insofar as it is a sentence.
I asked you a question and you responded by quoting from the bible:
Now when I ask you what that means, you tell me to continue to study the bible. That’s no answer at all.
I think the trouble is that life is cheap in the bible. And God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done to me sounds like handing off the people you don’t like to the local equivalent of Hannibal Lecter.
Or, you know, you could simply tell me what you meant that to mean as an answer to my question as to what should happen to those judged to not be carrying out god’s mission.
like I said it sounds like you would be a harsh boss. God on the other hand decided to bear with much patience those who refuse to do their job. He simply turned them over to try and figure it out for themselves.
I am not the judge of what should happen to folks. You were the one who suggested they should die. It seems to me you were setting yourself up as judge
quote:
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.
(Mat 7:2)
and
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.
(Rom 2:1)
and
Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful. “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
(Luk 6:36-37)
End quote:
It seems to me that does not bode well for “harsh bosses”. Those of us who are pushovers might bode a little better.
peace
Asked and answered.
Yes. Defeasible though.
It would be interesting sometime to hear your defense. I just don’t have the energy to plow that field right now. Let’s put a pin in that one for later.
peace
Well, perhaps I’ve been reading the bible and I’m all smite first ask questions later now!
If it does not matter if you don’t do the “job” god has given you, why would it matter if you were a nasty boss or not?
Bode a little better then what? Eternal hell and torture for ever? For there to be a be a better there has to be a worse. And that’s what I’m trying to find out. gods happy for you to ignore your purpose in life and will do nothing but woe betide you if you are a nasty boss!
inconsistent much?
I not sure but then again not my call
I don’t think the Bible ever mentions torture and for you to experience “eternal” requires immortality. Do you think that you are immortal? If you don’t why is eventual death such a big deal. You know circle of life and all that
1) Who said anything about God being happy?
2) funny you should characterize the judgement you would impose as “woe betide”. If it’s so bad why did you suggest it in the first place?
peace
I’m asking you to interpret the holy book, to tell me what t’old man wants his people to do.
Job had a super fun time I guess.
If there is no consequence, then it’s true to say that god is “happy” to ignore that.
Death is the standard punishment in the bible.
But you are happy to trot it out as an “explanation” and when questioned, it’s not your call. I’m just following your “logic”.
I ask again, what do you mean by that? What will happen to “harsh bosses” to make them regret their harshness?
And I never said you were, did I? What I’m asking you, as the resident expert, is what your god says will happen to folks who don’t do their “job”. And so far it’s nothing will happen or it won’t “bode well”.
And anyway, if it does not “bode well” for me to punish harshly presumably I’ll be punished harshly in my turn? By who? Your god? And so who will punish that god harshly for the sin of harsh punishment?
Just give up.
Turing you over to figure it out for yourself is the ultimate consequence. Because after all it is impossible for you to figure it out for yourself if you can’t know anything.
Death like taxes happens to us all. Without death evolution would be impossible whats the big deal?
quote:
I said in my heart with regard to the children of man that God is testing them that they may see that they themselves are but beasts. For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity. All go to one place. All are from the dust, and to dust all return.
(Ecc 3:18-20)
end quote:
All and all yes
quote:
And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.
(Job 42:10)
and
And the LORD blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning.
(Job 42:12a)
end quote:
peace
I already explained God leaves them to figure it out on their own then in the end inflicts on them what ever judgement they would choose to impose on others.
peace
Very zen.
I was curious enough to read Paul’s epistle to the Romans for content. Seems basically an anti-LBG rant.
The whole epistle? Wow that is some curiosity
So apparently you did not read much past the first chapter then.
It’s amazing what folks focus in on
I would say The first chapter is about the results of being lead by your passions instead of by reason. The LGB stuff takes up about 2 verses.
peace
My mistake. I Thought the first chapter was the first epistle. What I read did not inspire me to read more.
I understand. It’s not surprising given that you understood it to be a anti LGB rant
Missing the point followed by lack of interest is the typical response from folks on your side of the fence.
peace
There’s a fence?
I am curious as to the provenance of the collection of texts. Who wrote what, when, why and for whom seems an interesting question both for the original texts and for the resultant compilations.
For example, why the anti-gay-lesbian remarks in Romans I? I wonder who wrote it and what the real or perceived issues were at the time of writing.
I don’t think there are anti-gay-lesbian remarks in Romans one so I don’t think I can help you
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Maybe I’m reading too literally.
Perhaps you are mistaking comments about sex acts for comments about people.
I just don’t think it is a good thing to define people by what they choose to do with their gonads
peace
So you disagree with the writer of Romans I?