BS: Qu: Regarding Religion

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 08:11 AM

I have got a bit confused among several different discourses. Shall leave this thread for a bit while everybody gets tempers back.

≈M≈

····though would add for the sake of today's duty Popgun:-

This standard-form reply, held in my word-processor memory, is the only response I propose to make to your recent post:—

It is my principle to make no further answer than this to merely abusive posts addressed to me, as I take your last one to be..

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 05:44 AM

My remark was addressed to the anonymous guest-coward, Michael, who sticks his ugly masked head above the parapet occasionally, bleating that he needs his anonymity so that we'll address the point, not the man, then he starts calling other people names such as Jew-haters. And if ever I encountered a man who is the very opposite of a Jew-hater, it's Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 05:03 AM

"so tendentiously omitted,"
" yet choose to ignore the section that says identifying the actions of the Israeli regime with the Jewish people as a whole is antisemitic "
Not omitted at all Mike - try to keep up.
Sorry about the Cookie - will sort it out later
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 05:00 AM

"The evidence from Hebrew text is clear that murder is the meaning, not legitimate killing."

Legitimate killing? Seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:54 AM

He sanctifies and commands? No end to his talents eh?

You know Michael, when I was last in Israel a few years ago, a business acquaintance reckoned that those who portray criticism of Israel as being anti Semitic play into the hands of those who wish to perpetuate anti semitism.

By talking like an old fool, you merely give credence to a state that deals with its real issues by being as rogue as those who oppose its existence.

There again, perhaps "like" was a bit too kind.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:31 AM

Just to clarify, Dave , legitimate as per other peoples pov, and Old Testament times as sanctioned/commanded by God.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:02 AM

Is that addressed to me, Jim? [What has happened to your cookie BTW?]. If so, I think you missed the point that I had stressed that my recollections, which were intended merely as a response to Steve's annoyance that nobody seemed willing to 'name names', were way back in the past and I had no wish or intention to rake up past controversy for any other reason than to respond to Steve. Swallow your 'disappointment', Jim, simmer down, and come back to present time.

Tho, as you have raised what appears to me a new point which you didn't, to my recollection, make back then, I should be interested
(purely becoz I am like that guy in Dickens who 'wants to know, you know')
as to what essential parts of the 2005 definition you consider that I [to hear you tell it] so tendentiously omitted, and what may have been their relevance.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 04:01 AM

Pete:

"Well bill, whether Christians pick and choose does not alter what the original text says . I suspect musket is deliberately trying to wind keith up . I think it's known as trolling ! The evidence from Hebrew text is clear that murder is the meaning, not legitimate killing."

Legitimate killing??? I didn't expect that from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 03:38 AM

I have no idea why you have raised your extremely inaccurate to the point of dishonesty accusations of my being a closet antisemite here - but I am disgusted that you do so.
You, like other closet Israeli regime supporters, select the bits of the 2005 definition that suits you and ignore the bits that don't.
You claim that criticism of Israel is antisemitic, yet choose to ignore the section that says identifying the actions of the Israeli regime with the Jewish people as a whole is antisemitic - which has become the standard get-out-of-jail card for that regime's horrendous behavior.
The Israeli regime has betrayed the Jewish People as far as I'm concerned and them who support them have allowed themselves to be part of that betrayal.
In misusing the definition the way you have makes you no different than Keith, who uses the bits of the Christian Gospels that suit him while deliberately ignoring the bits that don't.
I really don't wish to continue this and will be disgusted if you7 do.
An extremely disappointed Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:55 AM

Over the lest ten to twenty years, most Christian denominations have abandoned the (1611) King James Version (we Catholics never used it). I believe the Gideons now distribute the "Today's English Version" (Good News Bible) from the American Bible Society to hotel rooms.

I thought the Seventh Day Adventists were very conservative, but a couple of weeks ago I heard a SDA minister advise people not to use the KJV unless they regularly speak Elizabethan English.

---

Bill D says: Many pretty devout Christians treat the biblical admonitions as guidance, not commands.

Well, Bill, that doesn't apply to the Ten Commandments. They're pretty basic standards. Most of us don't consider shellfish to be an abomination any more, though - the Jewish dietary laws don't have the same importance as the Ten Commandments. I think most denominations take a fairly commonsense interpretation of the Bible nowadays. It's not really "pick and choose." It's more a "use your head" principle - don't do (and don't believe) things that don't make sense.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 02:51 AM

I have from time to time, despite disappointment with the way Israel turned out despite the youthful hopes of my generation, challenged various correspondents who have seemed to me to allow anti-Israel expressions to fall over into a more generalised antisemitism, by citing that part of the 2005 definition of antisemitism by the EUMC {The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia}, regarding "the practice of disguised antisemitism masquerading as legitimate criticism of Israel". As Steve has called for the naming of names, I will mention Jim Carroll as one such correspondent that I thus engaged some time ago, as he may recall. Jim developed an unfortunate (imo) habit of dismissing my denunciations of Israeli present-day policy as'lip-service', but never attempted to explain to my satisfaction his grounds for such a pejorative and to-my-mind offensive denigration.

Not sure that correspondence ever came to a satisfactory conclusion, and have no desire to renew it, as we have since remained on generally OK terms, with only a few lapses, iirc. But I hope Steve will nonetheless regard this as a reasonable attempt to conform with his 'name names' challenge & injunction.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Mar 16 - 01:52 AM

Oh I don't know Steve, I had a post deleted during the night it seems, where I challenged such crass assertions. Bruceybaby and the moderators mirror the state of Israel and being propped up by Americans.

Nice to see that pete can ignore his bible and teaching too when it suits him. As he did so in order to address my point, perhaps I should feel flattered?

Like I said. Thou shalt not kill. It isn't difficult and it's what schoolchildren "the length and breadth of the land" had drilled into their heads in RE classes, and what every vicar and priest in the country says to their parishioners, being apparently the word of God.

Me? I am delighted to find that having never picked up a bible (I did prop up a noisy hotel bed once with a Gideon bible, although the noise from the other occupant of the bed made such matters superfluous,) I seem to know what it says far more than those who will be smiling sanctimoniously later today at their church.

I believe they use KJV as s bible. Therefore, thou shalt not kill. If any Christian sect in The UK use scrolls written in Hebrew, Attica etc, then maybe they can distinguish but the small number of Christians that exist in The UK are conversant with thou shalt not kill.

These dozy buggers are trying to say the bible they use is wrong. If it were, there would be a memo to all staff with erratum pages to staple to relevant pages.
😴

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:06 PM

Oh, here we go again. The man who calls people Jew haters. But who is way too lily-livered, and way too bloody thick actually, to name names. Very funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:03 PM

Well Pete, what is crucial about picking & choosing is whether anyone chooses to accept a literal meaning in whatever the 'original' text said. Many pretty devout Christians treat the biblical admonitions as guidance, not commands.
I think it is interesting that YOU take a view that might not be exactly what your church believes. To me, that is just another indication of the subjective nature of most people's moral decisions. (I assume you would allow... or at least forgive... killing in certain instances of self-defense or defense of your family.)

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:25 PM

Well bill, whether Christians pick and choose does not alter what the original text says . I suspect musket is deliberately trying to wind keith up . I think it's known as trolling ! The evidence from Hebrew text is clear that murder is the meaning, not legitimate killing. There may be disagreement on the parameters of those areas , but that is the basic meaning. For myself , I don't think it right to kill in war, or execution b but as I earlier said I accept there are arguments for the opposite stance. It is my view , not necessarily of my church.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 12:49 PM

Jew haters are those who equate criticism of Israeli crimes with blaming the Jewish people - by officially definition
It first appeared as such in the Revised English Bible in the 1960s
You have yet to respond to killing for profit - especially in arms selling, which is profiting from those who kill for profit.
Your silence indicates that you are in favour of that one - another bit of the bible kicked out of the window.
You are once again indulging in selectivity
Another bit of pacifism for you to ignore
"The LORD will mediate between nations and will settle international disputes. They will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will no longer fight against nation, nor train for war anymore."
That's unchanged throughout all editions of the Bible
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 12:27 PM

when Israeli militants commit terrorist attacks in Palestine, hospitals and schools are "legitimate targets."


Nobody is as monomaniacal about Israel as British and Irish Jew-haters.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 12:07 PM

Well Musket, whether those above are pseudo-Christians or direct descendants of Jesus himself, all *I* can reply to them is long OR short versions of the points I just made.

They are doing their picking & choosing according to subjective interpretations... whether their subjectivity was drilled into them from childhood or chosen from a "one from column A and one from column B" list that they 'think' they perused carefully. The very act of choosing ... even choosing to choose "none of the above"... presumes subjectivity. I have tried since about the age of 16 to decide 'rationally', but it could be argued that is itself a subjective choice. (I think I can combat that notion, but to those who have already picked one from column A and one from column B, MY arguments are just my 'opinion'.)

It is all a matter of comfort levels and how badly they need answers to questions that some of us don't believe HAVE answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 11:10 AM

Thou shalt not murder is a modern retionalisation of the original 'thou shalt not kill'

No. The original commandment was unequivocally against murder, and that is how Jesus would have known it. Later mistarnslations can not change that fact.

If killing for profit is wrong, Keith should be prepared openly to say so.

I do, and have said it.

If arms sales, which is in fact profiting from those killing for profit. Keith should be prepared to say so.

Arms should not be sold to regimes that do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:41 AM

But cut through the waffle Bill and we are left with pseudo Christians on Mudcat saying "thou shalt not kill" is wrong and the bible needs correcting.

Make of that what you will, but it came from someone who plays with his toy soldiers, says the men who were sent over top in WW1 were well led and that when Israeli militants commit terrorist attacks in Palestine, hospitals and schools are "legitimate targets."

I would say we all have a right to an opinion but this bugger reckons all Christians know the bible is wrong. The snag is, the others on here who claim also to be Christians seem to think it means thou shalt not kill.

Yet use words such as boutique or pick n mix, and they all get a bit shitty about it...

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:28 AM

If the issue of killing and morality is expanded to include all of huuman history, much of the nit-picking debates above are easier to resolve.

   Throughout the ages humans have "killed for gain". Our cave dwelling ancestors did.... Alexander the Great did... Ghengis Khan & the Mongols did... the Romans did. The list is endless.

But, as civilizations grew, it became obvious (to some) that indiscriminate slaughter for personal or political or cultural gain had problems. Some 'resolved' the issue by adopting moral creeds based on supposed religious themes, some (like Kant) by simply arguing that it was not **rational** to "do unto others" what you wouldn't want "done to YOU".
   Obviously, "killing for gain" still occurs in many forms - both by individuals and by groups who rationalize about their 'privileged status'. What this means is that ... hold on to your hats... **morality is subjective**. It is relative to circumstance and culture and religious belief and other such categories. Yes, certain passages in the Bible were , and 'killing' and 'murder' were sometimes considered identical and sometimes carefully separated.... according to culture, specific religious affiliation, and personal circumstance.
   There is obviously a set of rational reasons for society to define and regulate what, if any, 'killing' is permitted ... and by whom: but no universal agreement as to what the definitions & regulations should contain or who should define and regulate them.
Should capital punishment be permitted at all? Should it be left to legislatures & judges, or be a matter of voting by the citizens? (Cue 27 pages of ranting debates).

It is fairly easy to clarify what ancient texts said about killing & murder, and various of you have done that.... but it is NOT easy to proscribe which interpretation OF those texts should be universally accepted---- simply because we silly humans all are able to rationalize and make decisions based on subjective criteria!

All of us are subject to certain laws about killing & murder, but we all know those laws are often ambiguous ...and even when fairly clear, are not always fairly applied.

This thread was begun to ask about religion, but I just tried to make the point that religion MUST be seen in the larger context of historical analysis to even begin to understand what it all means.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:04 AM

Raggy - what is the "Jewish Talmud" doing in your list of 0716? Think that was written in English, do you?

≈M≈

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 10:03 AM

Thou shalt not murder is a modern retionalisation of the original 'thou shalt not kill'
If it is a correction - it took a thousand years or so to correct - a correction of convenience, I would say.
If killing for profit is wrong, Keith should be prepared openly to say so.
If arms sales, which is in fact profiting from those killing for profit. Keith should be prepared to say so.
So far, he has attempted to link Christ's words about having his followers with swords (for defensive purposes) with the arms trade
Christians eh - who'd 'ave 'em?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 09:10 AM

Murder is the act of killing,if the commandment is thou shalt not murder it is surely equally applicable to all acts of killing,not the ones that suite.
Killing other people is punishable under human laws,religious law be it Jewish,Christian or Islamic seem to have get out clauses.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 09:06 AM

On the other thread, Joe Offer who has studied theology says Keith is wrong too.

Come to think of it, Christians say "thou shalt not kill" Other than Keith, (who lets face it says WW1 veterans didn't understand what they went through till modern "historians" ripped their accounts into shreds because they weren't patriotic enough,) no Christian seems to say the bible is wrong.

Perhaps that's why normal people aren't superstitious. We aren't capable of keeping a straight face.

I'm not anyway.
😅😅😆😆😆😂😂😂😂
😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹😹



😸

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 08:06 AM

"No. You are completely wrong and wilfully so as ever."
You said
"Trade requires a profit. Jesus advised his followers to buy swords."
You linked Jesus's words to profit profit and swords - all in one line
Doesn't really become plainer than that.
You are now using the Gospels to support the arms trade - I really didn't think I'd live to see the day.
"Jesus did not condemn trade."
He condemned the accumulation of personal wealth - he threw those who practiced it out of the temple and he said rich people would not be allowed into heaven - absolutely unequivocal.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 07:16 AM

"Thou shalt not kill" is not the commandment. It is a mistranslation made in just one version of an English bible. The ancient Hebrew says "murder" and so do the Greek tanslations"

Do you ever do any reading before posting such nonsense? "Thou shalt not killed is quoted in the following: 1. Septuagint version, 2. Philo version, 3. Samaritan Pentateuch version 3. Jewish Talmud, 4. Augustine version, 5. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 6. Lutheran version, 7. Reformed Christian version. There are possibly other versions as well.

Sheesh !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 06:09 AM

Hmmm..... GfS, a few problems of detail. Constantine saw a vision of a cross in the sky in 312, before the battle of Milvian Bridge, which was against a Roman rival, Maxentius. It was in Rome, not Istanbul, which was in any case called Byzantium then, before Constantine renamed it Constantinople in 330. The Turks in the 4th century were still in central Asia, present day Turkey was divided into a number of Greek speaking states, the successors of Alexander's empire.

Constantine was not a nice man. He boiled his wife in a hot bath on the orders of his mother. Mothers-in-law can be troublesome things.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:57 AM

"Thou shalt not kill" is not the commandment.
It is a mistranslation made in just one version of an English bible.
The ancient Hebrew says "murder" and so do the Greek tanslations.

That is an indisputable fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:47 AM

Right.

One one side we have Joe Offer, who has studied such things, pete, who thinks I don't like him but I admire his lack of hypocrisy if not his grasp of reality, and all the normal rational people who have contributed.

On the other, we have Keith and Goofus.

Are we going for beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probability here?

😇😇😇

Thou shalt not kill.

It doesn't apply to me by the way. I prefer let he who is stoned cast the first sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 05:35 AM

So now it is acceptable to kill for profit - for the record do I have that right?
No. You are completely wrong and wilfully so as ever.

Jesus condemned acquisition

Jesus did not condemn trade.
A carpenter invests in tools and timber to make a stool which he sells for a profit.
Likewise a fisherman or a vintner. They have to keep their families and save for further investment and to see them through hard times.

Who would He be advising to buy swords from but an arms dealer?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:51 AM

"Trade requires a profit. Jesus advised his followers to buy swords."
Doubletalk Keith - Jesus condemned acquisition and did not in any way condone "killing for profit" as you are now doing
So now it is acceptable to kill for profit - for the record do I have that right?
I would just like to have that on record.
SFA bout "killing for profit"
You have yet to respoond to your "Christian morality" on the Arms trade
Your weasling doublespeak is typical of that of your religion - dishonest and brutal.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:26 AM

dave: "....Jim, I think the problem is in the refusal to throw off the baggage of the medieval mindset. You may stop reading here and say that the Church is the baggage of the medieval mindset, but it doesn't have to be. The conflation of the church with the authority structure probably dates from Constantine the Great, often it is thought that Constantine introduced Christianity to the west, but he did no such thing. He appropriated Christianity as part of his power structure..."

BRAVO!!!

dave has broached the heart of the disillusionment, of WHY people think of 'Christianity' as the power structure of an organized 'religious' body of rules, liturgies, control, dogmas and 'costs of subscribing'!!

As the teachings, and effects, resulting from those teachings began to spread out from Judea, its influence was beginning rival Rome's.

In 333 A.D., Constantine defeated the Turks at Istanbul, and came back with the story that he saw a cross in the sky. This was a way to co-opt the spreading influence of Christianity, and incorporate it into a part of the Roman Empire. They incorporated many of the 'pagan' rituals, and beliefs and merged them with an 'adjusted interpretation' of Christianity, and made a state form of the Roman Empire with Christianity part of their ruling religion...sort of a Church/State governing body.

The extent of the Roman Empire, included parts of the Middle East, North Africa, Italy, and extending up to the British Isles, Greece, and up towards Russia...pretty much all of Europe.

The FIRST Roman Empire, was just that...The Roman Empire....when they co-opted their convenient interpretation of Christianity, the Roman Empire became 'The Holy Roman Empire'..and instead of a Caesar, their figure-head, they replaced it with a 'Pope'...who acted in the same capacity...but now had 'God on their side'....and an infraction of the law of the 'state', now became a 'sin'..if you will..and punishable by fines, and servitude, even the confiscation of property as 'penance'.....One could give a 'tithe' to work off time, in a place they invented called Purgatory, called an 'Indulgence'...and if you had enough 'Indulgences' to your name, you might not have to spend hardly any time there, at all!!

...all this was a most effective way of maintaining control of the Empire.

That lasted about 1000 years, commonly referred to as 'The Dark Ages'. Reading a Bible would have been strictly prohibited....as well as the fact that there were none, UNTIL Gutenberg invented the printing press, around 1450, and began printing them....so the Empire-State/Church banned them, and forbade ANY interpretation, of them, or the gathering of groups who wanted to read and discuss..or even pray within those groups, unless it was in concordance, with a 'State sanctioned 'priest'. Hardly ANY education, inventions and so on, happened during this time...BUT, there was an 'Inquisition'...gotta stamp out ANY 'heresies' arising from any interpretation, of ANYTHING about 'Christianity' that wasn't under the authority of the 'Pope', as maintain its ironclad rule over their 'subjects'.

When Martin Luther began his studying and teachings, this became a major 'unraveling' to the Holy Roman Empire....and subsequent protests arose...as did different interpretations...hence, the word 'PROTESTants'. There was now a schism,(or schisms) within the binding force of the HOLY Roman Empire. Also Henry the VIII, wanted to divorce....and that was forbidden by Rome, so he split from the Roman Church, and from having the Pope as a Supreme ruler, over him...you guys know the rest about that.....HOWEVER, all these 'newer' denominations, arisen out of rebelling from Rome, formed their reformed churches much in the order and pattern of what they had been accustomed to...for centuries!!!...sort of a variation of a theme.

Now a brief word of the two..The Roman Empire, and ORIGINAL Christianity..... The 'Roman Empire', later 'Holy Roman Empire' still yearned to re-united, and become a world power...unite, and re-claim their now lost territory and rule. The word 'Reich' as in the Third Reich, literally means, 'realm of the Emperor', specifically the Roman Empire. (Here...see....) The Second Reich was the German Empire...and we all know what the Third Reich was....AND as you read above, the control of the Roman Empire territory, happens to 'co-inside' with the designated expanse of the Axis powers.(see above)

Christianity, in it's 'original form' was completely different...AND the reason the were even called Christian, was not exactly because it was some sort of a denomination, but the word originally meant 'Christ-like'....and the earlier 'church'(if you will), consisted of a lot of their believers, whose BEHAVIOR exemplified obedience to the command of LOVE...and many of them seemed to have 'powers', as a result of their adherence to 'Loving God above all things, and your bother as yourself'.....and it was RAPIDLY gaining in popularity....so much that Rome saw it as a threat!!...and the power that some of these followers were exercising, were blowing people's minds.....and many of the original eyewitnesses of Jesus, some who got dialed into what it was, gave up their lives, unto martyrdom, rather than blow off what they saw, and had 'access' to. ...so it must have been a lot heavier version, than what was passed down, after centuries of a co-opted version, which basically was powerless, beyond the State's enforcement!!

That being said, and not to go on much further, and contrary to Roman Catholic dogma, the original apostles and disciples of Jesus was not about an instituted, organization....but rather an 'organism', one living manifestation of God, incarnate...complete with love AND a knowledge and understanding of how the elements of the 'unseen' worked, and as a result, included many of what people called 'miracles'.

Here's an interesting example....Jesus wasn't teaching that 'if you were good' you'd 'go to heaven'....never found in his quotes, never found in any of the letters...but what WAS being taught, and shown, was that, 'heaven is coming to us', so wise up, get your acts together and utilize love in a way that results in some amazing, and unexplainable things, called 'miracles'..but in actuality, just a given 'side-effect'.....not a goal...just dealing with the properties
of a fuller awareness of who and what we are.

GfS

P.S. Sorta makes it fathomable of why today's ideological sense of materialism, and the control over it tends to discourage people who want to 'believe' in a power other than the state approved variety!!

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 04:18 AM

Musket, Christians do know about that mistranslation.
It is an indisputable fact that the ancient Hebrew text, as learned by Jesus, proscribed murder not warfare if just. The Israelites were constantly at war from the time of Moses onwards.

Jim,
If it is wrong to kill for gain, is it not equally wrong to trade in arms for profit?

Trade requires a profit. Jesus advised his followers to buy swords.

Yes they are -it is inbult in wahat they say - it is wrong to kill,,(no qualifications)

It IS qualified. See above.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Mar 16 - 03:31 AM

I don't believe that any more than Michael or his nurse. The point is, Christians are taught to...

The bible is the bible. That it is based on a series of even older scripts is at the same level as the fact that most of the stories in it are borrowed from earlier religions. There is nothing authentic about any of it really, not even tattered texts stored near the Dead Sea. It was compromise and borrow to begin with so not much point in finding a convenient real one, is there? Churches in The UK use KJV in the main and if not, then a version written since.

In English. Oh, and vicars, who buy into it far more than Mudcat's pious idiots, say it is the word of God. Wrong again eh Keith? The big guy with the beard contradicts you (or you him in terms of pecking order eh?)

Oh, and it says thou shalt not kill. Out of interest, the difference between kill and murder is set by secular authorities such as parliament and the judiciary. So it isn't within the brief of churches to distinguish on this moral point in the first place, as they render such matters to Caesar.

"Anyone who cares knows it is a mistranslation." On that basis Keith, 99% of Christians don't care. Your minority hobby just got a whole lot smaller.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 07:31 PM

"No they are not. I subscribe to both."
Yes they are -it is inbult in wahat they say - it is wrong to kill,,(no qualifications)
The answer is no, and I do not need to answer for events many hundreds of years ago."
Yes you do - Christianity didn't start last week - it is what its history has made it.
The massacres that took place in Spain and Chile were not "hundreds of years ago" - Chile took place during my adulthood and Spain was happening during when I was an adult.
The oil wars that Britain is supporting are to ascertain that cars are filled up at the best profitable price - is that acceptable to you as a Christian?
If it is wrong to kill for gain, is it not equally wrong to trade in arms for profit?
Britain is the 6th greatest arms trader on the planet - for profit, trading to despots and human rights abusers unconditionally - their arms minister has admitted the same.
Can we assume that you, as a Christian condemn that trade?
That'll be the day!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:56 PM

The only religion that has any credence in my unasked for opinion is Buddhism, which is centred around compassion for all living beings

Except Muslim living beings in Myanmar it would appear.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:16 PM

Musket, ask them what it means.
Everyone gives the KJ quote, but anyone who cares knows it is a mistranslation.
It is a fact not a lie that the original Hebrew is mistranslated in the KJ bible.

Jim,
Both of these are indications of built-in pacifism.
No they are not. I subscribe to both.

I've asked you a number of times if it's ok to fight wars for territory or political power - no answer

The answer is no, and I do not need to answer for events many hundreds of years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:41 PM

OK Musk. Just go on believing that the Bible was written in English & bound in black & dropped from heaven on the Archbish of Cant's head in 1616. & we all hope it keeps fine 4U.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:35 PM

I asked a real Christian yesterday.

He said it states "thou shalt not kill"

Not satisfied, I did another search. Seems it says "thou shalt not kill."

It's been a few years since Jim was on the throne and time enough for edits, yet the latest print seems to say "thou shalt not kill."

In English

Oh and my vicar friend? I recall that after a reading from the pulpit he ends with "this is the word of God". After reading from KJV.

Good enough for me. Stop lying Keith. Stop pressing random keys Goofus.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:20 PM

"medieval mindset. "
I think it's a bit more fundamental than that Dave.
The Church, rather than being a source of spiritual guidance, is little more than an arm of the State - on hand to lend a hand in wars, if necessary, or to pacify civil disorder..... and more or less anything it is called on to do.
The Church of England was deliberately created by England's head of state, Henry VIII in order to guarantee his and his heirs' position as rulers of England
I think Joe is right to a degree, that in some ways the Catholic Church is becoming more liberal, but I'm not sure whether this is enlightenment or simply pragmatism, in the light of ongoing the clerical abuse scandals and especially what happened in Ireland with the same-sex referendum - unthinkable even a decade ago.
I think the Bishop of Dublin hit the nail on the head when he said that the referendum result was a "wake-up call for the Church.
I noticed while thumbing through the internet that there are a number of substantial calls from progressive groups for a return to "the real meaning of the gospel".
It will be interesting to see if they have any success, and if so, what the reaction of the various hierarchies will be.
Interesting days, eigh - I knew a lot of lapsed Catholics who would have loved to have loved to see it!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,dave
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 02:24 PM

Jim, I think the problem is in the refusal to throw off the baggage of the medieval mindset. You may stop reading here and say that the Church is the baggage of the medieval mindset, but it doesn't have to be. The conflation of the church with the authority structure probably dates from Constantine the Great, often it is thought that Constantine introduced Christianity to the west, but he did no such thing. He appropriated Christianity as part of his power structure, and it has remained so to this day. After him, the schism between Rome and Byzantium, in 1054, all the business with Henry VIII and his daughters, right down to the seats of the bishops in the house of lords, these are examples of Christianity being manipulated by people of power, not the other way round. The problems in Ireland for goodness sake, and you know more about this from first hand than me. And people of power need wars. The problem that the church has, and there are many honourable exceptions, is in refusing to reject that explicitly. And I don't mean a particular church, all of them, or most of them, with exceptions such as the Quakers, such as Bonhoffer, such as Huddleston.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 01:38 PM

"So, which bits do you claim I ignore?}
Try -"Turn the other Cheek" - it's been up several times
Talso - he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword
Both of these are indications of built-in pacifism.
I've pointed out the contradiction contradiction between the gospels opposition to acquisition and the Church; attitude
Only getting started with these 0- you have yet to respond to one.
I've asked you a number of times if it's ok to fight wars for territory or political power - no answer
"What examples?"
These ****** examples - which you have already been given.
I gave you a whole list of such wars - a denial they happened
Here they re again - all endorsed by the Church:
You have been given a list of examples of the slaughter they have carried out for political power and wealth - I might have added The Crusades - which were simply to open the Trades routs - plenty more of this sort of thing - or the opening up of Empires to 'civilise' the conquered.
Christian Spain wiped out entire cultures in pursuit of gold
Britain took part in the mass slaughter of entire generations in the name of "God, King and Country"
The Borgias (2 popes among that lot) were masters of war, avarice, rape and murder.
Now - cut the crap and answer.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 01:10 PM

Jim,
And once again you choose the bits of your religion which suit you and ignore the bits that don't.

So, which bits do you claim I ignore?

You deny that you and your church support killing for gain - perhaps you would care to respond to the examples given.

Of course I deny it.
What examples?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Stu
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 05:41 AM

"just bitter meaningless babble"

Whoooossssshhhhh! Again.

The only religion that has any credence in my unasked for opinion is Buddhism, which is centred around compassion for all living beings (and dominion over none) and selflessness. In fact, Zen buddhism is a quite remarkable philosophical system that still seems along way ahead of western medicine when it comes to understanding the mind and how it works.

In fact, you can be a Buddhist without even believing in a jot of the supernatural baggage that comes along it. It is a truly life-enhancing way of living, and quite compatible with science too.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Dave
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:43 AM

Musket, Keith definitely does know of the Quakers, there is a Meeting House in Hertford for a start, and they have a proud and long-held position of refusing to fight in wars. They set up the Friends Ambulance Brigade and not only Quakers, but many other Christians will join that rather than fight.

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:41 AM

Well I condemned the Iraq war. I condemn the death penalty. The just war theory is a ludicrous contruction and I'll use self-defence only as a last resort. Am I a pacifist? Not a bit of it. Less of the non-sequiturs, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:08 AM

The Catholic Church is moving closer and closer toward pacifism. I've heard tell that Pope John Paul spoke out 52 times against the first Bush war in Iraq. And the Catholic Church no longer approves of the death penalty, and it has more-or-less disposed of the "just war theory."
Self-defense is still permissible, but only as a last resort.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 04:06 AM

"He preached love and forgiveness."
And once again you choose the bits of your religion which suit you and ignore the bits that don't.
The modern-day church has rationalised and adapted the Christian teaching to suit their own political agendas which is why it is in the moral mess that it is today - today it flies in the face if its own teaching by serving two masters 'God and Mammon'.
You deny that you and your church support killing for gain - perhaps you would care to respond to the examples given.
It is "Christianity" such as your that has made the church and your religion non-event that it has become - 'more power to your elbow' as they say in Ireland.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Qu: Regarding Religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Mar 16 - 03:50 AM

Cross threaded:

My post was directed at Stu.

GfS