... ) who are a bit strapped for cash I believe that this is the ONLY day that the queen carries money... ...
Originally posted by JSV:
<strong>Topic: FresnoBob...Martin Henry...Beckham007 and other religious nutcases...
Spot on there 26. Nutcases.
Well I can't speak for Beckham007 but me and Bob are the voices of sanity on this forum...
Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>To each his own.
Exactly...
And i think you know that Bob.
Martin certainly knew i wasn't having a go.
I'm geniunly interested what everyone does.
I'm not a government employee by the way Bob.
You touchy get.
Originally posted by Raoul:
<strong>To each his own.
To Each his Own as long as one agrees with JSV
Originally posted by FresnoBob:
<strong>
Dubya doesn't believe in organized religion-- he's a member of the United Methodist Church.
(There are a few of us around).</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you become an Evangelical Lutheran, you join a distinguished group of individuals.
Originally posted by 26 may 1999:
<strong>
I'm not a government employee by the way Bob.
You touchy get.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My sincerest apologies to the government for suggesting that they would carry a person such as you on the payroll.
Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>Fresno, do you believe in the tooth fairy, n'all?
I do....</strong><hr></blockquote>
By US standards of fundamentalist, Bible thumping religiosity, I am a pagan.
I have to believe in the tooth fairy because two of my kids are still sticking their baby molars under the pillow.
Originally posted by Martin Henry:
<strong>
Anyway 26, on Good Friday Christ dies and on Easter Monday he gets up, didn't you learn anything at school?...
Er, sorry but am I missing something? I thought it was on a Sunday? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Originally posted by utdalltheway:
<strong>
my bad, I did hear that he was "born again" around the time he turned 40.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's one born again every minute
Originally posted by FresnoBob:
<strong>half-baked psuedo agnostic government employee calling me a nutcase.</strong><hr></blockquote>
We prefer to simply call it "going postal"
Originally posted by kkcbl:
<strong>
Er, sorry but am I missing something? I thought it was on a Sunday?
Well spotted kkcbl, you're quite right it was Sunday, I know that, can't think why I said Monday...
No Easter Eggs for me now I think to atone for my gross error...
Originally posted by Roger:
<strong>
But the 6th commandment does not state thou shalt not unjustifiably and with intent kill another human being . This is the legal definition of murder . Man made Law . Not the words of the 6th Commandment . This interpretation no doubt gives moral justification for so called Christians to kill . In my view Christians who seek to justify killing another human being for whatever reason are hypocrites.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I lost you after the double negative. Given that the words Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai were "Thou shalt not commit murder;" or a reasonable Hebraic facsimile thereof, the question would be, "What does that mean?"
I was merely pointing out that the old quote I learned many years ago--"Thou shalt not kill," was, apparently, an overstatement or overbroad translation of the original.
You seem to be saying that we craven Christians (actually the Semetic tribesmen who guarded these words since 1445 B.C.) took the word "murder" and came up with a definition to circumvent God's will. Personally, I figure the legal definition is the proper definition, as I will not dispute the learned scholars who developed either the Talmud or the Christian schools of thought on the contents of Exodus.
Of course, I realize that you, unlike them, obviously understood what God really meant.I'm sure that had you been around to educate the Pharisees, Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, St. Jerome, Martin Luther, and the entire translation team for the King James version, all these misunderstandings would have been avoided and we could all share your personal knowledge of what the Almighty actually intended.
Originally posted by FresnoBob:
<strong>
I lost you after the double negative. Given that the words Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai were "Thou shalt not commit murder;" or a reasonable Hebraic facsimile thereof, the question would be, "What does that mean?"
I was merely pointing out that the old quote I learned many years ago--"Thou shalt not kill," was, apparently, an overstatement or overbroad translation of the original.
You seem to be saying that we craven Christians (actually the Semetic tribesmen who guarded these words since 1445 B.C.) took the word "murder" and came up with a definition to circumvent God's will. Personally, I figure the legal definition is the proper definition, as I will not dispute the learned scholars who developed either the Talmud or the Christian schools of thought on the contents of Exodus.
Of course, I realize that you, unlike them, obviously understood what God really meant.
I just looked into the translations involved here, and it seems there is a lot of dispute over whether it means "kill" or "murder".
But looking at Numbers 35:27-30 we see using the same word:
27 and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder. 28 The accused must stay in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest; only after the death of the high priest may he return to his own property.
29 " 'These are to be legal requirements for you throughout the generations to come, wherever you live.
30 " 'Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.
This last in other translations is:
"Whoever shall smite a person mortally, at the mouth of witnesses shall the murderer be put to death; but one witness shall not testify against a person to cause him to die."
"whoso smiteth a person, by the mouth of witnesses doth [one] slay the murderer; and one witness doth not testify against a person -- to die."
"Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be slain at the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person that he die."
"Death is the penalty for murder. But no one accused of murder can be put to death unless there are at least two witnesses to the crime. "
What this shows to me is several points:
1) Translations vary and open up the text to interpretation and controversy, so as to make the 'gospel' truth unreliable.
2) Generally the Old Testament supports the death penalty as legal and is far from pacifist. The New Testament, with "love they neighbour as thyself" and being concerned with the crucifiction of Jesus which emphasises the non-judgemental nature of the New Testament, does not support legal killing.
3) These Commandments are so imprecise compared with modern laws that they serve a very poor platform to build a legal structure on.
4) They're quite clearly pragmatic, temporal and relevant to their place and time and culture that to take them out of it and try to apply them is absurd.
5) They're man made laws, not Divine Eternal Unchanging Gospel.
If we take the practical guideline that one witness isn't sufficient to prove guilt and look at it in light of modern law, with dna, forensics, video, and the incredible variation in multiple eye witness accounts, we can see that it was a primitive attempt to make the law less subject to lying witnesses and didn't take into account conspiracy or that even 2 or more witnesses could be wrong, or the credibility of witnesses etc.
What it does show is the concern for reliable judgements, and that if reliable, then execution can be a just penalty. What Jesus showed was that this was flawed, and, allegedly, that only God could make such reliable judgements, and even He was forgiving and merciful, something which we should aspire to be.
This basic principle of uncertainty, and "do unto others as you'd have unto yourself", seem appealing to me, but have no more weight to them for being Jesus's philosophy than that of any other imho.
Originally posted by Martin Henry:
<strong>
I have always believed from being taught in a Catholic school that tolerance above anything else is a trait that is much praised...
Also from what I've been taught the simple principle of treating others the way you yourself would like to be treated is the basic foundation of what we would call "civilised"...
I'm a Christian and I also believe that I am civilised, I believe that it is possible to be civilised and not be a Christian but I don't believe it's possible to be a Christian and not be civilised...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know what you mean, but your last statement was quite funny - perhaps you meant "I don't believe it's possible to be a True Christian and not be civilised"
I won't mention the Crusades...
One thing I would criticise Christianity for is that its not been terribly successful at producing others like Jesus, I don't think sufficient teachings and techniques were given, and that those we do have are imprecise and quite basic - designed for a fairly primitive people. I just think they're very dated.
