To hate Jews is to hate God

by Greatest I am Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:22 pm

First topic message reminder :

To hate Jews is to hate God.

If you believe in the sacrifice of Jesus, then you must believe that God planned for it and set the conditions even before the earth was formed. If as most believe, the Jews were the cause of the sacrifice, then one must believe that God put the notion and desire to kill Jesus in the Jewish hearts. Jews then were God’s tools in carrying out God’s plan. Jews then should be venerated just as Jesus is because Jesus and Jews were required and caused by God to participate in the sacrifice. They were all doing God’s will and not their own.

Jesus was a Jew and to hate Jews means that Jesus is also hated. The church has historically persecuted Jews and only repented for their actions in 2011 with the pope acknowledging that not all Jews should be hated. Just those directly involved in the sacrifice of Jesus. Ignoring of course that they were charged directly by God to be and do what God wanted.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/jews-not-responsible-for-death-of-christ-pope-says-49267/

Why then have Christians historically hated Jews, and by inference, hate the Jew part of God/Jesus the Jew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ott15j2KwQ&feature=related

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoHP-f-_F9U

The weird twist to this history is that the Christian right who hates Jews the most, is now the ones pushing for funding of the Jewish homeland to fulfill prophesy.

Most Jews do not believe that Jesus was the messiah. Is the Christian right just funding Jews to help drive them to destruction at the hands of God?

Jews tend not to read the O. T. the way Christians do. Are Christian interpretations of Jewish text superior or inferior to the Jewish interpretation of their own myths?

Regards
DL

by Guest Sat May 18, 2013 1:35 pm

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p660-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#40770
I await your refutation of
Of what, exactly?

This.

RockOnBrother wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p660-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#40677

Atheist Empire
Atheist and Atheism Defined
English: atheist
Cambridge International:
someone who believes that God or gods do not exist
http://atheistempire.com/atheism/defined.html

By definition of Atheist Empire, an atheist believes that God or gods do not exist, accordingly, by definition of Atheist Empire, an atheist is a believer that God or gods do not exist.

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p660-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#40694

Since Rock is indulging in the infinitum ad nauseum fallacy…

RockOnBrother wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p660-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#40719

I await your refutation of Atheist Empire.

by Tosh Sat May 18, 2013 2:32 pm

I smell burning, the meltdown grows nearer.

by Shirina Sat May 18, 2013 4:22 pm

Shirina, you do not understand what an athiest is

You have it exactly backwards. I know precisely what an atheist is. You and Rock are the ones trying to use obfuscation to paint atheists as "believers."

you delude yourself going off the subject and attempt to justify your lack of understanding by a lot of nonsense.

You always say something like this when you try to justify your own lack of understanding of what I'm saying. It's a distinct pattern of behavior I've noticed for quite some time. So, I'm going to make this very simple:

If atheists are merely "believers" and, therefore, could be wrong, then Christians are also merely "believers" and also could be wrong.

Except you can't admit that your beliefs might be false.

I can (and have) proven this with logic, but you either don't understand my argument - or you're pretending you don't understand it.

The same can be said for Rock, as well, who continues to post ad nauseum arguments to the point of coming dangerously close to violating the forum rules on spam.

by polyglide Mon May 20, 2013 1:32 pm

You are right Shirina, I also do not understand how you come to certain conclusions based on what is said rather than the interpretation you like to put on it.

An atheist can be a believer, they usually believe in everything that is wrong with the world and some also participate.

But the bottom line or the top as far as you are concerned is that an athiest does not believe in the existance of God, he may believe that there is no God but that is another matter and incidental to the meaning of an atheist.

by Tosh Wed May 22, 2013 4:43 pm

The same can be said for Rock, as well, who continues to post ad nauseum arguments to the point of coming dangerously close to violating the forum rules on spam.

But he never resorts to trolling or irritation because he loves you.

by oftenwrong Wed May 22, 2013 5:50 pm

To hate Jews is to hate God - Page 18 Humptytop

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

by Tosh Wed May 22, 2013 10:21 pm

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

According to wiki, an atheist rejects belief, its an absence of belief and they believe deities do not exist.

There are 3 senses mentioned, broad, narrow and inclusive, and surprise surprise Texas takes the narrow sense of the word,

In the narrow sense of the word an agnostic is someone who believes god's existence is unknowable, so an agnostic is a believer too, which is nonsense.

by Tosh Thu May 23, 2013 12:08 pm

In a world where disbelief is belief, in a world where personal truth is truth, in a world where proven truth is false, in a world where vowels offend invisible beings, in a world where burning bushes make butterflies...etc etc

Seriously folks, you can shove your religious deference up your nose, these people are in a world of their own and its a world away from reality and sanity.

by Shirina Thu May 23, 2013 8:16 pm

An atheist can be a believer, they usually believe in everything that is wrong with the world and some also participate.

LOL! Now that's just funny all things considered ...

... and consider these new videos:

by Guest Thu May 23, 2013 9:46 pm

Richard Dawkins at Reason Rally, Washington DC, 24 March 2012
http://youtube.googleapis.com/v/HrC4rdF0KXU?ytsession=GbBs8Isl2nNjWZMOi1l2QSS9ACMuwEcPMugWidAxzRmObNWC05tc6zSJpPrtco6snhmgaYQtpjZCZrNNfLXK4rpsGlQxzHdKOO9PjwB23ExQrgoFCjd1YdaI8yWDB9aZ51VxGsYEaOg6ucQeUC5YFw

4:36-4:47, “Mock them. Ridicule them. In public.” 5:08-5:12, “… if necessary, need to be ridiculed with contempt.”

by polyglide Fri May 24, 2013 10:46 am

It is not religion that has caused all the worlds problems but the abuse and misuse of religion.

If everyone followed the Christian faith then there would be no problem.

by Shirina Fri May 24, 2013 3:35 pm

It is not religion that has caused all the worlds problems but the abuse and misuse of religion.

Oh, I see. It's the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" defense. Except, in Britain, private gun ownership is illegal, isn't it, except in very specific circumstances? Even though guns don't kill people all by themselves, the danger of people misuing guns warranted a law banning gun ownership. So ... if people misuse religion, well, follow my logic to its conclusion and you'll see why your defense of religion is an epic fail.

If everyone followed the Christian faith then there would be no problem.

Of course. And if everyone was white, there would be no racism. If everyone was rich, there would be no class conflict. If everyone was British, there would be no nationalistic jingoism. See where I'm going with this?

If everyone were just like me, there would be no problems!

Except there would be tons of problems. People would fight over the proper way to worship, the right way to pray, which hymns are appropriate, which parts of the Bible to emphasize, on and on ... which is why Christianity has over 20,000 different denominations. The ground would be soaked in blood as we fought over who is a "real" Christian and who isn't. History would repeat itself.

by Guest Fri May 24, 2013 4:37 pm

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41076
If everyone followed the Christian faith then there would be no problem.
Of course. And if everyone was white, there would be no racism. If everyone was rich, there would be no class conflict. If everyone was British, there would be no nationalistic jingoism.

If everyone were just like me, there would be no problems!

Greek Bible

“Therefore, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way you want others to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Matthew 7:12

False analogies.

To follow the Christian faith is to willingly heed Jesus’ teachings, including “in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way you want others to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets”; thus, if everyone followed the Christian faith, everyone would, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.

If everyone was white, everyone would not, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.

If everyone was rich, everyone would not, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.

If everyone was British, everyone would not, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.

If everyone was just like you, everyone would not, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.

by Shirina Sat May 25, 2013 6:47 am

False analogies.

I think you're missing the point.

I could just as easily say, "If everyone was Muslim ..." and get the same result. What polyglide is advocating is nothing less than theocratic facism, something history has had quite enough of, I think.

If everyone was white, everyone would not, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.

And you REALLY think that if everyone were Christian, the world would be some sort of utopia? Look at our own country, Rock. With 90% or more people being Christian, you'd think there wouldn't be so much violence, crime, racism, sexism, etc. in our society. Why is it that the USA produces more serial killers than any other country?

And no, don't bother handing me the "No True Scotsman" fallacy by claiming those people aren't "true Christians." That would be saying that only non-Christians do bad things, and that would be claiming that Christians are perfect and free of sin.

by trevorw2539 Sat May 25, 2013 7:56 am

Shirina wrote:
False analogies.

I think you're missing the point.

I could just as easily say, "If everyone was Muslim ..." and get the same result. What polyglide is advocating is nothing less than theocratic facism, something history has had quite enough of, I think.

If everyone was white, everyone would not, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.

And you REALLY think that if everyone were Christian, the world would be some sort of utopia? Look at our own country, Rock. With 90% or more people being Christian, you'd think there wouldn't be so much violence, crime, racism, sexism, etc. in our society. Why is it that the USA produces more serial killers than any other country?

And no, don't bother handing me the "No True Scotsman" fallacy by claiming those people aren't "true Christians." That would be saying that only non-Christians do bad things, and that would be claiming that Christians are perfect and free of sin.

I think ROC is right to an extent. I'm going to use the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. I qualify it with this.

There are VERY FEW Christians in the world using ROC's 'following the teachings of Jesus' example. If one were to do that exclusively then the world would be a better place. The problem comes with everyone, even with Christians believe it or not Smile

, that we are all human. It is our humanity that lets us down.

Like it or not we are all subject to our own personalities, temperaments etc and no-one I know has ever been able to overcome those passions completely in thought word and deed. So people call themselves Christians, albeit they fail often to live up to those standards.

Rather like Politicians.

Christianity has added to the teachings of Jesus practises that I believe Jesus would not approve of, and thus we have so many denominations.

There has never been a perfect Christian, as there has never been a perfect human being. Except, as Christians claim, Jesus.

by polyglide Sat May 25, 2013 11:36 am

Shirina, just try and get someone to explain the implications of the following:-

God Satan
Good Evil
Love Hate
Temptation
Choice
Result.

When eventually you realise what religion is about we may, just maqy make a little progress.

by Tosh Sat May 25, 2013 12:14 pm

Trevor,

If everyone lived by my words " show kindness to everyone " then the world would be a paradise with a universal morality that creates no conflict but yet facilitates individual expression.....in theory.

The message itself is not rocket science but humans are not simple copying machines but a complex combination of mammalian genetic instructions and environmental responses. In reality we are fully cognizant animals driven by primordial messages to react in predictable ways to circumstance, there is no free will only survival. Telling a sheep to show kindness to its lion neighbor or vice versa is whistling in the wind, its impracticality has some serious survival disadvantages, and it is simply naive to believe the message on its own is sufficient.

Morality or kindness needs practical assistance, and this comes in the form of the environment we create for ourselves, an environment where the lamb can lie with the lion. Civilization is a process that tries to manage our basic needs, and it does this by reducing the need to behave like an animal, to create a society that reduces need and creates a circumstance that enables kindness to flourish.

The problem is civilization in removing basic physical needs creates psychological needs, and the lamb still cannot lie with the lion, morality is relative to our needs.

So morality and kindness is a struggle against perpetual need, and the true value of morality is in the struggle, humanity was born from this struggle, it is what separates us from both the lion and the lamb.

Some call this struggle God.

by trevorw2539 Sat May 25, 2013 12:23 pm

Tosh wrote:Trevor,

If everyone lived by my words " show kindness to everyone " then the world would be a paradise with a universal morality that creates no conflict but yet facilitates individual expression.....in theory.

The message itself is not rocket science but humans are not simple copying machines but a complex combination of mammalian genetic instructions and environmental responses. In reality we are fully cognizant animals driven by primordial messages to react in predictable ways to circumstance, there is no free will only survival. Telling a sheep to show kindness to its lion neighbor or vice versa is whistling in the wind, its impracticality has some serious survival disadvantages, and it is simply naive to believe the message on its own is sufficient.

Morality or kindness needs practical assistance, and this comes in the form of the environment we create for ourselves, an environment where the lamb can lie with the lion. Civilization is a process that tries to manage our basic needs, and it does this by reducing the need to behave like an animal, to create a society that reduces need and creates a circumstance that enables kindness to flourish.

The problem is civilization in removing basic physical needs creates psychological needs, and the lamb still cannot lie with the lion, morality is relative to our needs.

So morality and kindness is a struggle against perpetual need, and the true value of morality is in the struggle, humanity was born from this struggle, it is what separates us from both the lion and the lamb.

Some call this struggle God.

Agreed. But when someone erm... slightly more famous than you says it it should have more 'effect'. Wink

by Shirina Sat May 25, 2013 2:11 pm

There are VERY FEW Christians in the world using ROC's 'following the teachings of Jesus' example. If one were to do that exclusively then the world would be a better place.

The issue here is linking morality with the need to adopt a religion and worship a god. I just don't see a reason to believe in supernatural events, promises of heaven, threats of hell, and to worship and incessantly praise a deity in order to be a moral person. Religion and gods muddies the water with 3000 years worth of Bronze Age baggage. The Bible, from which Christianity draws its legitimacy, is not a pamphlet with a few Golden Rules. It is a book with almost 3,000 pages containing plenty of vague, ambiguous decrees, declarations, and commands that can be interpreted in a seemingly infinite number of combinations. The so-called "presence" of a silent, invisible deity leaves it open for anyone to claim to know what this deity wants.

by Guest Sat May 25, 2013 5:11 pm

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41097
False analogies.
I think you're missing the point.

I’m hitting the point dead center.

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41097

I could just as easily say, "If everyone was Muslim ..." and get the same result.

If everyone was Muslim and followed Y’shua’s teachings without alteration, everyone would, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41097
If everyone was white, everyone would not, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.
And you REALLY think that if everyone were Christian, the world would be some sort of utopia?

I didn’t say “if everyone were Christian, the world would be some sort of utopia.”

I said “if everyone followed the Christian faith, everyone would, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.”

Preceding that, I said, “To follow the Christian faith is to willingly heed Jesus’ teachings, including “in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way you want others to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Notice the following.

Greek Bible

“Therefore, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way you want others to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Matthew 7:12

As anyone who chooses to see, read, and comprehend Y’shua’s words above can understand, the statement “if everyone followed the Christian faith, everyone would, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them” is based upon Y’shua’s words, not my words.

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41097

Why is it that the USA produces more serial killers than any other country?

Serial killers, regardless of nationality, do not follow the Christian faith; thus, serial killers do not willingly heed Jesus’ teachings, including “in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way you want others to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41097

And no, don't bother handing me the "No True Scotsman" fallacy by claiming those people aren't "true Christians."

I shall not. Reliance upon Antony Flew is not necessary to state fact: These people aren’t Christians. There are no “false” Christians, and there are no “true” Christians. There are Christians.

Christians willingly heed Jesus’ teachings, including “in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way you want others to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41097

That would be saying that only non-Christians do bad things…

That would not be like saying that only non-Christians do bad things. That is saying that to follow the Christian faith is to willingly heed Jesus’ teachings, including “in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way you want others to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets”, and that thus, if everyone followed the Christian faith, everyone would, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way they want others to treat them.

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41097

… and that would be claiming that Christians are perfect and free of sin.

Perhaps you wouldn’t posit this fallacy if you would pay attention to Paul, an apostle of Y’shua bar Yosef, Y’shua Moshiach, Jesus the Christ, who calls himself “chief among sinners.”

by Guest Sat May 25, 2013 5:35 pm

trevorw2539 wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41098

I think ROC is right to an extent. I'm going to use the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. I qualify it with this.

There are VERY FEW Christians in the world using ROC's 'following the teachings of Jesus' example. If one were to do that exclusively then the world would be a better place. The problem comes with everyone, even with Christians believe it or not , that we are all human. It is our humanity that lets us down.

Like it or not we are all subject to our own personalities, temperaments etc and no-one I know has ever been able to overcome those passions completely in thought word and deed. So people call themselves Christians, albeit they fail often to live up to those standards.

A year or so ago, maybe a bit more, after a verbal barrage leveled against people neither known to me nor accessible to me had somewhat subsided, I was talking to a close friend about this very subject. This friend has seen me at my worst, “man on fire”, in the words of another friend, so our discussion was brutally honest. In other words, he drug my sorry behind though the mud of Texas from El Paso to Port Arthur, and I deserved every mile of being drug.

To lay claim to being Christian simultaneous with being “man on fire” is just plain wrong. I am Christian sometimes; I am not Christian often. At any time worldwide, there are no doubt many who are Christians sometimes who are not Christians at that moment.

by trevorw2539 Sat May 25, 2013 8:49 pm

Shirina wrote:
There are VERY FEW Christians in the world using ROC's 'following the teachings of Jesus' example. If one were to do that exclusively then the world would be a better place.

The issue here is linking morality with the need to adopt a religion and worship a god. I just don't see a reason to believe in supernatural events, promises of heaven, threats of hell, and to worship and incessantly praise a deity in order to be a moral person. Religion and gods muddies the water with 3000 years worth of Bronze Age baggage. The Bible, from which Christianity draws its legitimacy, is not a pamphlet with a few Golden Rules. It is a book with almost 3,000 pages containing plenty of vague, ambiguous decrees, declarations, and commands that can be interpreted in a seemingly infinite number of combinations. The so-called "presence" of a silent, invisible deity leaves it open for anyone to claim to know what this deity wants.

I wouldn't disagree with that. I've always said that there are many moral people outside of religion. But if someone finds religious belief a help, I'm all for it. Until they try to force it in someone else or, as in some cases, it takes over their whole lives and becomes their 'reality'. It seems to me that if 'God' had wanted to rule our lives he wouldn't have given us brains to think with, and the ability to make our own decisions.

by Guest Sun May 26, 2013 12:54 am

Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41109

The Bible… is a book with almost 3,000 pages containing plenty of vague, ambiguous decrees, declarations, and commands…

Greek Bible

“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”¹

“Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”²

“… whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”³

“If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.”⁴

“Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”⁵

“Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”⁶

[*]“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven…”⁷

“But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”⁸

“You cannot serve God and wealth.”⁹

“So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”¹⁰

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged, and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”¹¹

“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite: first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”¹²

“Therefore, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way you want others to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”¹³

Matthew 5-7, in part

Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.
Nothing vague and/or ambiguous about this.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:39 pm

Guest wrote:
Shirina wrote:https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t575p690-to-hate-jews-is-to-hate-god#41109

The Bible… is a book with almost 3,000 pages containing plenty of vague, ambiguous decrees, declarations, and commands…
Greek Bible

“For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”¹

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You don't think that's vague? Do you see lot of scribes and Pharisees outside of ancient Palestine then? It's hardly the kind of incisive statement one would consider synonymous with an omniscient mind, quite the opposite in fact, it's entirely synonymous with the ancient superstitious culture that wrote it.
“Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”²

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:You think that's not vague and ambiguous? Then again I beg to differ. What offering and to whom? Is this a literal brother or a metaphorical brother? One may after all be perfectly justified in falling out with a "brother" whether it is a literal or metaphorical brother.
“… whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”³

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I'm not sure one could be more vague or ambiguous, or more absurd. If it's a metaphor it's certainly both vague and ambiguous, if it's literl then it's absurd.
“If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.”⁴

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Again an absurdly vague metaphor, or not? Are we then to not just allow ourselves to be robbed but offer to be robbed again?
“Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”⁵

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Oh yes, that's not vague, no sir, not vague at all....
“Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.”⁶

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Vague and ambiguous might be terms invented with that sentence in mind, for goodness sake.
[*]“But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven…”⁷

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:As above vague and ambiguous.
[*]

“But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving will be in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.”⁸

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Absurdly vague, and ambiguous, and fairly risible as well.
[*]

“You cannot serve God and wealth.”⁹

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I think I just injured myself laughing now, if that's not vague or ambiguous perhaps you could explain that to the RC church or to televangelists who own private jets.
[*]

“So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”¹⁰

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Vague, very vague, and ambiguous.
[*]

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged, and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”¹¹

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Again if this is your idea of concise clarity from an omniscient mind it certainly is not mine.
[*]

“Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite: first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”¹²

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Vague...ambiguous....it's hard to know what else to say really.
[*]

“Therefore, in all things whatsoever, treat others the same way you want others to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.”¹³

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:I'm almost tired of writing it but yes, this is both vague and ambiguous, and to think you cherry picked these examples to show the opposite, I might think you were actually being facetious.

[*]

by stuart torr Thu Oct 24, 2013 1:23 pm

True Sheldon, when I read it earlier in the thread I could not stop laughing, that bible is totally comic strip. No offence meant to comics or comic strip cartoons.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:28 pm

stu wrote:True Sheldon, when I read it earlier in the thread I could not stop laughing, that bible is totally comic strip. No offence meant to comics or comic strip cartoons.

Hi Stu, a great deal of the bible has dated very badly, and it is clearly absurd in light of that to claim it's origins as omniscient. As for the odd parts that are still relevant today, and in some cases profound, even timeless, none of that actually requires omniscience, as humans have clearly always been capable of producing profound and timeless pieces of literature.

by stuart torr Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:05 pm

Please do not say Sheldon, that from your post you are almost stating that some of the bible is true.?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Oct 24, 2013 9:23 pm

stu wrote:Please do not say Sheldon, that from your post you are almost stating that some of the bible is true.?

Nothing in the bible validates any claim for anything metaphysical of course, but that doesn't negate any statements in it being true, like any other claims they stand or fail on their own merits. There is nothing in it that requires an omniscient being to create it either.

by polyglide Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:50 am

To hate anyone shows a total lack of the ability to understand the opinions of others.

Hate is self destructive and the cause of many of the worlds problems.

I love evryone but some far more than others.

That is a personal choice based on the mannner in which others portray themselves.

It would not matter to me if those I love a little less were Jews or any other nationality, it is the person that counts and not their origin.

As I said previously, hate is not on my agenda.

by Dan Fante Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:03 am

You can't possibly love everyone. It's just a thing to say to make you appear like a more superior human being. Without a full spectrum of emotions and feelings towards people and things the concept of love (or hate) is meaningless.

by polyglide Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:35 am

I do hate some things, abuse of any kind, the lack of helping those in need, indifference to the needs of others, selfishness, being just a few.

I do love everyone to a lesses or greater degree, we are all different and those who choose evil and are looked down on are still human beings and we do not know all the circumstances so I take the advice of God, LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

by Dan Fante Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:38 am

When you take an emotion as strong as love and apply it to everyone you lessen its value. It's a bit like saying everyone's a world class football player but some people are more world class than others. I do accept hate is a useless emotion as it affects the person doing the hating more than the one being hated.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:36 pm

Dan Fante wrote:You can't possibly love everyone. It's just a thing to say to make you appear like a more superior human being. Without a full spectrum of emotions and feelings towards people and things the concept of love (or hate) is meaningless.

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote::yeahthat:

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:39 pm

Dan Fante wrote:When you take an emotion as strong as love and apply it to everyone you lessen its value. It's a bit like saying everyone's a world class football player but some people are more world class than others. I do accept hate is a useless emotion as it affects the person doing the hating more than the one being hated.

Is he talking about historical humans as well? So he's claiming to love people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Fred West, Ian Brady etc etc as much as he loves his own family. I have to agree with Dan here, that's an asinine claim.

by Shirina Fri Oct 25, 2013 3:50 pm

Dan Fante wrote:When you take an emotion as strong as love and apply it to everyone you lessen its value.

That really depends on the type of love being discussed.

There are some types of love, by their very natures, must be exclusive. Romantic love (the most destructive emotion in existence) is a case in point, as well as, say, a mother's love for her child. Obviously those types of love would begin to lose value if they were shown to everyone.

But there are more general types of love that could be applied to everyone ... although, to be more accurate, "love" is probably too strong a word for it. You can have concern for a fellow human being, the kind that causes you to help someone in need. You can have empathy and respect for a fellow human being which gives you the impetus to be polite, courteous, and not a complete asshat to everyone you meet.

But love? Probably not.

I think it stands to reason that most of us, if presented with that horrifying choice of saving from death only one person out of a group, we would pick a friend or relative to save before we would pick a complete stranger. (Although I do have a psycho aunt that I just might let go down in flames while I rescue a stranger .... Twisted Evil

)

by stuart torr Fri Oct 25, 2013 4:14 pm

Good post yet again Shirina, no-one can fail to see where you are coming from if you understand my meaning. I agree very much that "romantic love" is one of the most destructive forms of love going i'm afraid, as I have found seriously twice in my life. There is also a Father's love for his child too which you seemed to forget? as I would do anything for my daughter, even if it meant giving up my own life to save her's. I know i'm a great big softie, but given the choice out of saving some of my neighbours lives or my dogs I would save my dogs every time.

by Bellatori Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:08 pm

stu wrote:Good post yet again Shirina, no-one can fail to see where you are coming from if you understand my meaning. I agree very much that "romantic love" is one of the most destructive forms of love going i'm afraid, as I have found seriously twice in my life. There is also a Father's love for his child too which you seemed to forget? as I would do anything for my daughter, even if it meant giving up my own life to save her's. I know i'm a great big softie, but given the choice out of saving some of my neighbours lives or my dogs I would save my dogs every time.

You wait until you have a grandchild... it is only then that you see men reall turn to mush Very Happy

by stuart torr Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:16 pm

I believe you Bellatori, few years to wait for that though. Unless I am dead and gone.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Oct 25, 2013 10:40 pm

Bellatori wrote:
stu wrote:Good post yet again Shirina, no-one can fail to see where you are coming from if you understand my meaning. I agree very much that "romantic love" is one of the most destructive forms of love going i'm afraid, as I have found seriously twice in my life. There is also a Father's love for his child too which you seemed to forget? as I would do anything for my daughter, even if it meant giving up my own life to save her's. I know i'm a great big softie, but given the choice out of saving some of my neighbours lives or my dogs I would save my dogs every time.
You wait until you have a grandchild... it is only then that you see men reall turn to mush

I agree 100%.

by polyglide Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:32 am

Love is a many splended thing.

Take Hitler as an example.

I deplore what his actions resulted in.

There is no excuse for his beliefs.

However, who am I or anyone else, to judge, when we are unaware of the evil influences that he may have been subject to.

Perhaps love in his case may be the wrong word, maybe sympathy would be better as he must be a very lost soul.

by Dan Fante Sat Oct 26, 2013 12:50 pm

Poor Adolf.

by Sponsored content