Sabbath for Skeptics

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?

571 thoughts on “Sabbath for Skeptics

  1. Alan Fox: So you disagree with the writer of Romans I?

    No the writer of Romans is not defining people by what they choose to do with their sex organs.

    People are not sex acts

    He can criticize particular sex acts with out feeling that he is attacking people. I would tend to agree with that understanding.

    quote:

    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    And such were some of you.

    But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
    (1Co 6:9-11)

    end quote:

    peace

  2. fifthmonarchyman: He can criticize particular sex acts with out feeling that he is attacking people. I would tend to agree with that understanding.

    How can you separate a sex act from the people engaging in it?

    Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    your quote seems to refute your understanding, the author attacks people who engage in those forbidden acts. Thieves not theft, drunkards not drinking, men who practice homosexuality not homosexuality.

  3. newton: How can you separate a sex act from the people engaging in it?

    Wow, That you could even ask that question shows that the sexual revolution is complete.

    Is it even possible to be a gay person who has not engaged in sex in your mind?

    Surely you agree that a person could argue that general celibacy is beneficial without it being seen as an anti heterosexual rant.

    newton: the author attacks people who engage in those forbidden acts. Thieves not theft, drunkards not drinking, men who practice homosexuality not homosexuality.

    The author is saying that it is sinful to engage in certain acts including all sex outside of marriage. Then he says that some of his readers used to engage in those very acts but no longer do because they have been changed.

    This is a far cry from attacking people it’s about behavior and God’s Grace.

    To define people by what they do at times instead of who they are is to see them as robotic slaves to their passions instead of reasonable agents.

    I think that is truly sad.

    You might disagree with Paul and say that there is really nothing wrong with drunkenness but to call his comments a rant against people prone to addiction is inaccurate and unfair.

    peace

  4. hey ffm,
    Presumably you would vote in favour of gay marriage then?

    If not, could you point out the part of the bible where Jesus says that gays should not be able to marry?

  5. Here are some anti-heterosexual rants for you to use as comparative reference

    quote:

    Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”
    (1Co 7:1)

    and

    To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am.
    (1Co 7:8)

    and

    I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife,
    (1Co 7:32-33)

    and

    For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.”
    (Mat 19:12)

    end quote:

    peace

  6. OMagain: could you point out the part of the bible where Jesus says that gays should not be able to marry?

    He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
    (Mat 19:4-6)

    peace

  7. OMagain: Presumably you would vote in favour of gay marriage then?

    There is no such thing as gay marriage. If you mean should government issue Marriage licenses to same sex couples. As a libertarian I don’t think the government should offer marriage licenses period.

    If a Gay or Strait person wants to call his sex partner his spouse or his tuna fish sandwich that is his own business

    peace

  8. fifthmonarchyman: He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
    (Mat 19:4-6)

    peace

    I notice the word “marriage” did not appear in that quote. Try again perhaps.

  9. fifthmonarchyman: There is no such thing as gay marriage

    The word you are looking for is “no” to the question “would you vote in favour of gay marriage”. You don’t have to justify your answer. Just like I don’t have to justify my response, as above.

  10. OMagain: I notice the word “marriage” did not appear in that quote. Try again perhaps.

    Are you honestly suggesting that you have to use the word “marriage” to talk about marriage? Come on be serious

    OMagain: Yet you are in favour of heterosexual marriage. Why?

    That is like asking why I’m in favor of adolescence or friendship. Marriage like adolescence just happens under certain circumstances there is nothing to be for or against.

    I don’t have strong opinions about things that just happen.

    Now If you were to call middle age adolescence or acquaintance friendship I might correct you by explaining that words have meaning but that would be the extent of my involvement.

    peace

  11. OMagain: The word you are looking for is “no” to the question “would you vote in favour of gay marriage”.

    I would not vote in favor of middle age adolescence either.
    It would be silly to bring such a thing to a vote.

    Words have meanings

    peace

  12. Marriage was a political institution for millennia before religion got into the act. Just look at the marriage laws for Greece, Rome, China — anywhere. Organized religion gets into the marriage business when Christianity becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire.

    In the American context (which doesn’t affect some of you): if you want to separate church and state, marriage goes on the state side, not the church side. That’s why pastors and rabbis always say, “by the power invested in me by the state of _____, I now pronounce you husband and wife.” It’s the power of the state that confers marriage on a couple, not any religious authority.

  13. Kantian Naturalist: Marriage was a political institution for millennia before religion got into the act.

    Marriage started in Genesis 2 at the very beginning with the first couple.
    That’s before politics heck it’s even before clothes

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: Marriage started in Genesis 2 at the very beginning with the first couple.
    That’s before politics heck it’s even before clothes

    According to your mythology, yes. But not according to reality. Genesis was written several thousands of years after civilization got started, in the Levant and elsewhere. The first civilizations began around 12,000 years ago; the Bible was written around 600 BC.

    At least according to Biblical scholars and not people who make up absurd bullshit on a whim.

  15. Kantian Naturalist: According to your mythology, yes. But not according to reality.

    How exactly do you know that your version is reality?
    What criteria did you use to determine that your view is the correct one?

    In other words how do you know stuff in your worldview?

    peace

  16. Kantian Naturalist: Genesis was written several thousands of years after civilization got started

    Why is that important? Are you suggesting that texts can not accurately record events that happened before they were written?

    peace

  17. fifthmonarchyman: Are you suggesting that texts can not accurately record events that happened before they were written?

    No. (Depending on how much accuracy you are ascribing to “accurately”.) I’d be more sceptical of a record of events before they happen.

    fifthmonarchyman: In other words how do you know stuff in your worldview?

    Consilience.

    ETA missing text

  18. fifthmonarchyman: How exactly do you know that your version is reality?

    And here the tale ends, with Adam and Eve and a global flood. Tales for children, believed and defended by adults.

    fifthmonarchyman: In other words how do you know stuff in your worldview?

    Why don’t you ask Saint Augustine for guidance?

  19. fifthmonarchyman: Are you honestly suggesting that you have to use the word “marriage” to talk about marriage? Come on be serious

    I saw no description of a ritualised ceremony as marriage is. commonly understood. That quotation does not exclude or preclude two people of the same sex also being married.

    fmm, show me where in the bible *Jesus* said that gay marriage is forbidden. Jesus is the last word on this, right?

    fifthmonarchyman: I would not vote in favor of middle age adolescence either.

    Would you vote in favour of allowing mixed-race marriage? On what biblical basis?

    fifthmonarchyman: Marriage started in Genesis 2 at the very beginning with the first couple.
    That’s before politics heck it’s even before clothes

    Please tell me the specific verse where it is noted that Adam and Eve were married.

  20. fifthmonarchyman: I would not vote in favor of middle age adolescence either.

    So you would vote against two people who love each other having that love recognised formally so they can enter into the same legal arrangements as other married couples?

    I’m sure Jesus is right there with you, with his “don’t tread on me” flag and everything.

    When that hospital is denying visitation rights to the partner of someone dying because they don’t recognise their marriage as valid, that’s you doing that. Not someone else, some abstract person. You are standing there denying that last visit. You, specifically.

  21. And before you re-iterate that you’d simply not visit such a hospital, by not voting for it you are voting for that discrimination.

  22. OMagain: I saw no description of a ritualised ceremony as marriage is. commonly understood. That quotation does not exclude or preclude two people of the same sex also being married.

    1) I’m not too big on ritual either.
    2) I’m sorry but it explicitly says God made prospective spouses “male and female”

    OMagain: So you would vote against two people who love each other having that love recognised formally so they can enter into the same legal arrangements as other married couples?

    I would vote to eliminate any “legal arrangements” that discriminated against any group of adults that goes for couples and thruples and whatever possible arrangement you can come up with.

    OMagain: When that hospital is denying visitation rights to the partner of someone dying because they don’t recognise their marriage as valid

    I would recommend that hospitals spend their energy on health care and respect the wishes of any patient to see any one that please.

    If I wanted to see someone and the hospital denied it I would change hospitals if I was able and probably direct my errs to sue if I was not.

    This seems to me to be a red herring issue. If this is a real problem surely a list of all the busybody hospitals who deny a patients visitation requests could be complied and posted on the internet somewhere so I could avoid them when the time comes if I was so inclined. Heck if I was asked by a friend I’d even volunteer to make a phone call to the local establishment to verify their policy

    peace

  23. OMagain: by not voting for it you are voting for that discrimination.

    I’m sorry but I’m not voting for adultery when I don’t vote to make it illegal. Why does your side always try and legislate morality?

    Peace

  24. OMagain: Would you vote in favour of allowing mixed-race marriage? On what biblical basis?

    Race is a modern construct with no basis in Biblical or biological fact. humans are humans regardless of their skin tone

    quote:

    And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
    (Act 17:26)

    end quote:

    peace

  25. fifthmonarchyman: Why does your side always try and legislate morality?

    The reason is simple. People like you hide behind the Bible as a shield for your discrimination.

    So we have to create laws that ensure that people like you don’t discriminate against those your religion tells you to discriminate against.

    You don’t see a problem with a hospital setting their own rules such that some classes of people are less equal then others. So we need laws to enforce that instead.

    fifthmonarchyman: If I wanted to see someone and the hospital denied it I would change hospitals if I was able and probably direct my errs to sue if I was not.

    Except you are not in a same-gender marriage are you? So it’s not going to come up. And what sort of person says “well, when it affects me then I’ll do something about it”?

    fifthmonarchyman: If this is a real problem surely a list of all the busybody hospitals who deny a patients visitation requests could be complied and posted on the internet somewhere so I could avoid them when the time comes if I was so inclined.

    Yes, because making people go to a hospital potentially 100’s of miles away so they can not be discriminated against makes so much sense. And if you are being rushed to the hospital as an emergency case, at what point will you say “no, not that one, they don’t respect the rights of everyone? ”

    The problem is ffm, you are making lots of noise that makes it appear you don’t support discrimination (go to a different hospital, make a list on the internet and avoid them, call them to verify their policy) when in fact all you have to do is vote for gay marriage to be legal. Then everything else takes care of itself.

    fifthmonarchyman: I would vote to eliminate any “legal arrangements” that discriminated against any group of adults that goes for couples and thruples and whatever possible arrangement you can come up with.

    That’s not what I’m asking about. You are against discrimination, you are against people being denied visitation. And the answer to all those things is simply to give people in same sex marriages the same rights as any other married couple.

    And you don’t want to do that, for some reason.

    fifthmonarchyman: This seems to me to be a red herring issue.

    Yes, that’s how it seems to you. But given you are not affected by that sort of discrimination, how else would it appear? If you were denied the right to marry your partner of choice I’m sure it would stop seeming like a red herring.

  26. fifthmonarchyman: I would vote to eliminate any “legal arrangements” that discriminated against any group of adults that goes for couples and thruples and whatever possible arrangement you can come up with.

    So you would vote against allowing gay marriage. You can simply just say that, you know. It’s not like when you get into the voting booth you can write in what you say above. It’s simply yes or no. You don’t get to answer a different question, you don’t get to say that “marriage” is something other then what is on the table.

    It’s simply a yes or no question. And it’s clear you’d vote no.

    I’m sure Jesus is proud.

  27. OMagain: when in fact all you have to do is vote for gay marriage to be legal. Then everything else takes care of itself.

    Or you could have 5 unelected judges impose their will on the rest of us for our own good.

    OMagain: And the answer to all those things is simply to give people in same sex marriages the same rights as any other married couple.

    I’m not sure you heard but this is old news your side won.

    Same sex partners are now a privileged class and polygamous and insestous marriages are the odd ones out facing discrimination as well as all committed relationships that don’t involve sex

    peace

  28. fifthmonarchyman: Or you could have 5 unelected judges impose their will on the rest of us for our own good.

    I assume you would feel the same if it were nine unelected judges imposing their will on the rest of us, as in Loving v. Virginia, for example.

    Same sex partners are now a privileged class

    They now have the same privileges that heterosexual couples have. Makes me so happy for them.

    and polygamous and insestous marriages are the odd ones out facing discrimination

    and there is a reason for each of those exceptions…

    as well as all committed relationships that don’t involve sex

    we’ve already been over your truly bizarre position here, but Obergefell is actually a blessing for such couples. They can get married! And no, they don’t have to have sex with each other. You are quite deranged on this subject.
    btw, I never really got a straight answer from you:
    Are Catholics Christians?

  29. DNA_Jock: and there is a reason for each of those exceptions

    Please enlighten us as to why we should allow discrimination against the loving relationships of consenting adults because some right now find their lifestyle to be icky.

    DNA_Jock: btw, I never really got a straight answer from you:
    Are Catholics Christians?

    You must have missed the multiple times I replied.

    What a person calls themselves is irrelevant to whether they are a Christian or not.

    It only matters that they are trusting only in the Jesus of the Bible for their salvation.

    I personally know lots of Catholics who do so and some who do not.

    Is that a strait enough answer for you?

    peace

  30. DNA_Jock: Obergefell is actually a blessing for such couples. They can get married! And no, they don’t have to have sex with each other.

    Marriage is when God joins a man and a women so that they are no longer two but one flesh. So no they can not get married.

    If they choose to lie they can get some extra goodies from the government but betraying your conscience is a high price to pay for that sort of thing don’t you agree.

    peace

  31. fifthmonarchyman: Marriage is when God joins a man and a women so that they are no longer two but one flesh. So no they can not get married.

    If they choose to lie they can get some extra goodies from the government but betraying your conscience is a high price to pay for that sort of thing don’t you agree.

    I don’t understand you. If what the government does is irrelevant to real marriage in your view, why shouldn’t that same government give its tax deductions to “shmarried couples” if it wants to? What do your (IMO, wacky) views have to do with any of that?

    Render under Caesar, etc .

  32. walto: If what the government does is irrelevant to real marriage in your view, why shouldn’t that same government give its tax deductions to “shmarried couples” if it wants to?

    Government can and does do what it wants. Folks like me will continue to speak up when we think it’s actions are jacked up. That is all we have ever been able to do.

    In this case we will point out the hypocrisy of giving certain sexual relationships privileged status to the exclusion of all the others.

    petrushka: Who’s betraying their conscience?

    The deeply committed same sex friends that DNA_Jock advises to lie to the government in order to get goodies.

    peace

  33. Alan Fox: I was curious enough to read Paul’s epistle to the Romans for content. Seems basically an anti-LBG rant.

    Thanks for your opinion, but it’s worthless.

  34. Alan Fox: I am curious as to the provenance of the collection of texts.

    I’m curious about people who claim to have read a text and then admit they didn’t read it.

  35. Mung: Bigot. Bigot.

    A bigot is not someone who simply calls someone else a bigot. A bigot is someone who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions. If being against discrimination makes me a bigot then I’m proud to be that.

    Mung: Thanks for your opinion, but it’s worthless.

    Yes, that’s more like proper bigotry! Good show!

  36. fifthmonarchyman: Marriage is when God joins a man and a women so that they are no longer two but one flesh. So no they can not get married.

    Josephus makes it clear that polygamy was practiced among the Jews of Jesus’ time. Is that marriage?
    In Exodus 21:10 it is clearly written of the husband: “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.”
    Is that marriage?
    And of course we have Genesis 16:1-6. I guess you are going to tell me that was the equivalent of IVF back in the day?

    If I look at the bible to learn about marriage I do not see the marriage you talk about, between one man and one woman.

    One man and 300 women perhaps (1 Kings 11:3). Is that marriage? But not so much about your version.

  37. OMagain: A bigot is someone who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.

    Tolerance does not mean indifference. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them intolerant.

    OMagain: Josephus makes it clear that polygamy was practiced among the Jews of Jesus’ time. Is that marriage?

    No plural marriage is not the Biblical ideal it is a deviation from the ideal.

    But even if it was biblical that is beside the point government has decided to discriminate against loving plural unions because they are unpopular right now do you think that is tolerant or bigoted?

    OMagain: In Exodus 21:10 it is clearly written of the husband: “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.”
    Is that marriage?

    no the Bible is a practical book it works with the hand it was dealt

    OMagain: If I look at the bible to learn about marriage I do not see the marriage you talk about, between one man and one woman.

    Do you really look to the bible to learn about marriage?
    Perhaps you need to actually read what the Bible has to say about the subject . Here it is again.

    quote:

    Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
    (Eph 5:25-33)

    and

    They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of divorce and to send her away.” And Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”
    (Mar 10:4-9)

    and

    The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
    (1Ti 3:1-2)

    and

    Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years of age, having been the wife of one husband,
    (1Ti 5:9)

    etc etc etc

    peace

  38. fifthmonarchyman: Please enlighten us as to why we should allow discrimination against the loving relationships of consenting adults because some right now find their lifestyle to be icky.

    Against polygamy: inheritance taxes and welfare benefits; ambiguity re “next of kin”.
    Against incest: state interest in avoiding in-breeding
    In both cases, your church is free to sanctify these relationships. As noted above, the OT appears to sanction both…

    fifthmonarchyman:
    The deeply committed same sex friends that DNA_Jock advises to lie to the government in order to get goodies.

    Actually no lying need be involved at all. I have been married twice, and neither time did anyone from the government ask me about my sex life. The priest, on the other hand, was rather specific, asking me “do you intend to deny your wife an act of true marital intercourse, that is, one that can lead to the begetting of children?”
    In England and Wales, non-consummation is not grounds for annulment of a same sex marriage, so there is clearly no need to lie to anyone. In 5MM-bizarro world, this constitutes discrimination against platonic heterosexual couples who wish to marry; but don’t worry 5MM, no-one is going to ask them about their sex lives.

  39. DNA_Jock: I have been married twice, and neither time did anyone from the government ask me about my sex life.

    Marriage is when God joins a man and a women so that they are no longer two but one flesh. It is not about sex.

    To claim to be married when you know you are not is to lie

    peace

  40. fifthmonarchyman: Marriage is when God joins a man and a women so that they are no longer two but one flesh.

    No, that’s “matrimony”, not “marriage”, and your church is welcome to whatever definition of matrimony they choose, including the polygamy and incest of the OT. They are NOT welcome to their own definition of secular marriage.

    It is not about sex.

    Unless you happen to be a Catholic, that is…

  41. fifthmonarchyman: To claim to be married when you know you are not is to lie

    Here, let me help you out.

    Your opinion on the validity of other peoples marriages is just that, solely your opinion.

    You talk like you are stating a fact. You are not. You are stating your opinion.

    The fact is same-sex marriages exist, are now legal and are correctly called marriages. That you don’t like it does not change that fact.

    But let’s continue this a little further.

    If people who “claim” to be married when they are not (according to you) are liars, then what is the punishment the bible describes for liars?

    Jeremiah 50:36: “a sword is upon the liars”

    Or how about Naaman the Syrian whose entire lineage was cursed for his sins?

    So, as a follower of the bible is it your contention that those who claim to be married when they are not should be put to the sword? Or cursed?

  42. OMagain: Your opinion on the validity of other peoples marriages is just that, solely your opinion.

    What criteria did you use to determine your opinion is the correct one.

    In other words how do you know stuff in your worldview?

    OMagain: You talk like you are stating a fact. You are not. You are stating your opinion.

    no I’m stating a definition. You may disagree with the definition of marriage but that does not change the definition? You can’t definitions by taking a vote.

    peace

  43. fifthmonarchyman: no I’m stating a definition. You may disagree with the definition of marriage but that does not change the definition? You can’t definitions by taking a vote.

    Sure you can. That’s how dictionaries are updated.

  44. petrushka: Sure you can. That’s how dictionaries are updated.

    Those aren’t real definitions! Those are just the opinions of lexicographers! Hell, I bet most of them don’t even know about the Logos! How can you know anything without the Logos? Huh? Huh? Answer me that! Ha!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.