The Bible is true

[Penelope]

The guy who wrote Revelations was clearly insane. I have no idea why they included it in the bible.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, a popular form of literature at the time. If one knows the Old Testament, one can easily see parallels of issues and matters that were familiar to the Jews of that time. Revelation was an encouraging message to early Christians, partially encoded, assuring them that God would prove victorious over Roman persecution of the early Church.

John was anything but insane, very clever in fact. The problem is that he was using allegories, very familiar to people of the time, but not all that familiar to people centuries later.

I tend to get a little frustrated when people have John writing about the future, when Revelation was directed to people in his own time and about events that occurred two thousand years ago.

Where Revelation is apropos to Christians of all times is that we will all have our trials, but God will ever prove victorious over evil that comes upon us.

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I don't know what makes these asshats think that their ignorance isn't patently obvious to anyone who actually does know the material they like to jabber about...

most people in the USA do not ADMIT that they never read
the bible. ---they "KNOW" it anyway. Some simply repeat partyline stuff-------from sunday school all the way to
"anti" propaganda An interesting factoid that I learned is that most muslims never read the Koran either------not only do they know everything about the Koran-----they even KNOW the bible. Lots of people barely ever read a
whole book in their lives.

let's do a poll ---to facilitate I will admit------I read the bible and the Koran in translation. I would not stand a chance in
Arabic or Hebrew or Aramaic (for those interested in trivia---I am pretty sure that DANIEL comes in Aramaic) Penelope seems to "know" the bible based on islamo Nazi propaganda which she reads------a current fave source for her is obviously NATIONAL JOURNAL AND GLOBAL FIRE----really outstanding example of hardcore islamo Nazi crap It is a new source for me.

READY EVERYONE?
A yes or no I read the whole OT
B I read the whole NT
C I read the whole koran
D I read parts of the OT
E I read parts of the NT
F I read parts of the Koran
G nuthin'

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I don't know what makes these asshats think that their ignorance isn't patently obvious to anyone who actually does know the material they like to jabber about...

most people in the USA do not ADMIT that they never read
the bible. ---they "KNOW" it anyway. Some simply repeat partyline stuff-------from sunday school all the way to
"anti" propaganda An interesting factoid that I learned is that most muslims never read the Koran either------not only do they know everything about the Koran-----they even KNOW the bible. Lots of people barely ever read a
whole book in their lives.

let's do a poll ---to facilitate I will admit------I read the bible and the Koran in translation. I would not stand a chance in
Arabic or Hebrew or Aramaic (for those interested in trivia---I am pretty sure that DANIEL comes in Aramaic) Penelope seems to "know" the bible based on islamo Nazi propaganda which she reads------a current fave source for her is obviously NATIONAL JOURNAL AND GLOBAL FIRE----really outstanding example of hardcore islamo Nazi crap It is a new source for me.

READY EVERYONE?
A yes or no I read the whole OT
B I read the whole NT
C I read the whole koran
D I read parts of the OT
E I read parts of the NT
F I read parts of the Koran
G nuthin'

What an astonishing display of ignorance is contained in this thread.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I said Ezekiel, and that was me. Also whoever wrote Rev was senile or on mushrooms as well. What was Moses's last name again??

the book of Revalations appears in the New Testament and
is attributed to JOHN . There is a huge difference between being intoxicated on psychostimulating mushrooms and being senile. Considering the SKILL of the writer----he was clearly not senile. Senile persons write very poorly Some people write very well when
"HIGH" (perhaps you should try it some time----the situation
for you cannot get any worse) The "last name" of moses is
BEN AMRAM. Gee----you are an utter dimwit. He could have also carried the name MITZRI----ie the Egyptian. Jews have a kind of nickname for moses which
also identifies who he is "moshe rabeinu" If you had a
brain you, too, could learn how names are arranged in semitic languages

Moses was at most a general kicked out of Egypt or from what I've read led some leopards out of Egypt. He set up a military society and the laws he took from Egypt as he was brought up in Egypt, if there even was a Moses as the exodus as displayed in the Bible has been disproved.

The John , fourth gospel , was not the same John who was said to of wrote Rev. which almost did not make it into the NT, but one much has a good ending the battle of good and evil, good winning out.

You haven't been around too many senile people who are highly religious have you? They see things and imagine things, but your right, it was wrote with a reason behind it, it was wrote for a specific reason. They were not ignorant, even back then they used religion to control the populous

Penelope-----give up------you do not even know what the word "SENILE" means------In general it has been used in
common parlance to refer to cognitive decline in old age-----
it is a general kind of word that has no real meaning other than ------"getting old" in medical parlance. For loss of cognitive ability----the word is DEMENTIA-----lots of idiots like you imagine that the word "dementia" means "insane"
or "psychotic" or even "intoxicated" -----it doesn't -----

it is silly of you to use words you do not understand. If I remember correctly ----you once claimed to work in "Health
care"--------yeah RIGHT!!!!! Find a sympathetic nurse and
ask her to define the words for you. NEVER try to explain
anything about the patients to their family members-----
you don't know how

Have you been around senile people? I didn't think so. Insane and senility are two different conditions. So it has to be senility, tripping or wrote for a specific purpose.

 

[Mertex]

... or have no knowledge of the Bible

.
or care not to read further when fallacy is perceived, considering its history of brutality ?

.

Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

 

[Skylar]

The Bible Can We Trust It

The Bible is not the worst Book I have ever read. People like to draw attention to himself. That's why somebody claims war to the Bible. The Bible has sense and logic while Qoran or Torah don't. I don't see the reasons why people shouldn't read it. But trust or not. It is a personal choice.

I've always found the Bible to be a strange book. As its old Testament and New Testament have a very strange relationship, that if pulled out of the context of the christian tradition would have most Christians laughing and pointing.

It would be like taking Buddhism and slapping Hinduism on the back end of it. Buddha was prince and of the warrior caste of venerable tradition of Hinduism. Buddha had his own epiphanies and preached non-violence, meditation, self reflection and an abandonment of attachment. Many students of Buddha wrote down his teachings and compliled them into books.

The Bible would be akin to folks AFTER buddha's death insisting that Buddha was actually a reincarnation of Vishnu. And thus, all of Vishnu's commandments for war, violence and retribution in the name of God put forth in the Bhagavad Gita were what Buddha really meant. And slapping the two together as an 'old and new' testament of Buddha's revelations.

The Bhagavad Gita was a completely different religious tradition centered around a completely different religious figure: Vishnu.. It has almost nothing to do with the teachings of Buddha, and in many cases explicitly contradict it. Just as the Torah and the Teachings of Christ are from two different religious traditions, and overwhelmingly contradict each other. With Yahweh killing people left and right. And Christ calling for love, forgiveness and non-violence.

Its just....odd. I tend to take the 4 Gospels together as representing Christianity better than the Bible.

you are clueless about both the bible and the Baghavad Gita---clearly you never read any of the ancient scriptural writings----I read the bible, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Gita and
SIDDHARTHA GAUTAMA, Try it some time. Siddhartha
(Buddha) was VERY MUCH a hindu. Jesus was a
Pharisee jew and like the Pharisee jews of the time based
his teachings on HILLEL. I find it amazing that the only
Christian I ever heard of who understood that fact was
Ross Perot (of all people)

Alright. Then show us how Vishnu's sermon to Arjuna before the battle with the Kauravas is compatible with the teachings of Buddha on say, non-violence. As that sermon is the spiritual core of the Gita.

And remember, Vishnu is trying to convince Arjuna of the righteousness of slaying his own kin in battle because God commanded it.

Good luck with that.

 

[irosie91]

The guy who wrote Revelations was clearly insane. I have no idea why they included it in the bible.

Revelation is apocalyptic literature, a popular form of literature at the time. If one knows the Old Testament, one can easily see parallels of issues and matters that were familiar to the Jews of that time. Revelation was an encouraging message to early Christians, partially encoded, assuring them that God would prove victorious over Roman persecution of the early Church.

John was anything but insane, very clever in fact. The problem is that he was using allegories, very familiar to people of the time, but not all that familiar to people centuries later.

I tend to get a little frustrated when people have John writing about the future, when Revelation was directed to people in his own time and about events that occurred two thousand years ago.

Where Revelation is apropos to Christians of all times is that we will all have our trials, but God will ever prove victorious over evil that comes upon us.

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I don't know what makes these asshats think that their ignorance isn't patently obvious to anyone who actually does know the material they like to jabber about...

most people in the USA do not ADMIT that they never read
the bible. ---they "KNOW" it anyway. Some simply repeat partyline stuff-------from sunday school all the way to
"anti" propaganda An interesting factoid that I learned is that most muslims never read the Koran either------not only do they know everything about the Koran-----they even KNOW the bible. Lots of people barely ever read a
whole book in their lives.

let's do a poll ---to facilitate I will admit------I read the bible and the Koran in translation. I would not stand a chance in
Arabic or Hebrew or Aramaic (for those interested in trivia---I am pretty sure that DANIEL comes in Aramaic) Penelope seems to "know" the bible based on islamo Nazi propaganda which she reads------a current fave source for her is obviously NATIONAL JOURNAL AND GLOBAL FIRE----really outstanding example of hardcore islamo Nazi crap It is a new source for me.

READY EVERYONE?
A yes or no I read the whole OT
B I read the whole NT
C I read the whole koran
D I read parts of the OT
E I read parts of the NT
F I read parts of the Koran
G nuthin'

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I don't know what makes these asshats think that their ignorance isn't patently obvious to anyone who actually does know the material they like to jabber about...

most people in the USA do not ADMIT that they never read
the bible. ---they "KNOW" it anyway. Some simply repeat partyline stuff-------from sunday school all the way to
"anti" propaganda An interesting factoid that I learned is that most muslims never read the Koran either------not only do they know everything about the Koran-----they even KNOW the bible. Lots of people barely ever read a
whole book in their lives.

let's do a poll ---to facilitate I will admit------I read the bible and the Koran in translation. I would not stand a chance in
Arabic or Hebrew or Aramaic (for those interested in trivia---I am pretty sure that DANIEL comes in Aramaic) Penelope seems to "know" the bible based on islamo Nazi propaganda which she reads------a current fave source for her is obviously NATIONAL JOURNAL AND GLOBAL FIRE----really outstanding example of hardcore islamo Nazi crap It is a new source for me.

READY EVERYONE?
A yes or no I read the whole OT
B I read the whole NT
C I read the whole koran
D I read parts of the OT
E I read parts of the NT
F I read parts of the Koran
G nuthin'

true------such stupidity is not uncommon. Most people never
read the bible------there is a clear inability for lots of people to
be able to see the value of any scriptural writings or writings
in general. ------they just do not grasp the concept of
"suspension of disbelief" and for that reason cannot APPRECATE their value. For many it is an issue of general
cynical stupidity. An example is JOHN----it is clear to me that the writings attributed to "JOHN" whoever he was are very mystical and sublime--------only a really shallow jerk would conclude "the guy was on mushrooms" and belongs in an insane asylum or did the jerk say that of the
writings of Ezekiel? similar level of stupidity

I said Ezekiel, and that was me. Also whoever wrote Rev was senile or on mushrooms as well. What was Moses's last name again??

the book of Revalations appears in the New Testament and
is attributed to JOHN . There is a huge difference between being intoxicated on psychostimulating mushrooms and being senile. Considering the SKILL of the writer----he was clearly not senile. Senile persons write very poorly Some people write very well when
"HIGH" (perhaps you should try it some time----the situation
for you cannot get any worse) The "last name" of moses is
BEN AMRAM. Gee----you are an utter dimwit. He could have also carried the name MITZRI----ie the Egyptian. Jews have a kind of nickname for moses which
also identifies who he is "moshe rabeinu" If you had a
brain you, too, could learn how names are arranged in semitic languages

Moses was at most a general kicked out of Egypt or from what I've read led some leopards out of Egypt. He set up a military society and the laws he took from Egypt as he was brought up in Egypt, if there even was a Moses as the exodus as displayed in the Bible has been disproved.

The John , fourth gospel , was not the same John who was said to of wrote Rev. which almost did not make it into the NT, but one much has a good ending the battle of good and evil, good winning out.

You haven't been around too many senile people who are highly religious have you? They see things and imagine things, but your right, it was wrote with a reason behind it, it was wrote for a specific reason. They were not ignorant, even back then they used religion to control the populous

Penelope-----give up------you do not even know what the word "SENILE" means------In general it has been used in
common parlance to refer to cognitive decline in old age-----
it is a general kind of word that has no real meaning other than ------"getting old" in medical parlance. For loss of cognitive ability----the word is DEMENTIA-----lots of idiots like you imagine that the word "dementia" means "insane"
or "psychotic" or even "intoxicated" -----it doesn't -----

it is silly of you to use words you do not understand. If I remember correctly ----you once claimed to work in "Health
care"--------yeah RIGHT!!!!! Find a sympathetic nurse and
ask her to define the words for you. NEVER try to explain
anything about the patients to their family members-----
you don't know how

Have you been around senile people? I didn't think so. Insane and senility are two different conditions. So it has to be senility, tripping or wrote for a specific purpose.

If you were able to read ----you would know that I did mention
that fact in my post You are the person who is confused.
The word "SENILITY" is not used in medical parlance as
a diagnosis relative to COGNITIVE ABILITY--------there is a term "SENILE DEMENTIA" which some idiots imagine
is a SYNONYM of "SENILE" The word "senile" is so used by people who are entirely ignorant of medical care.
Try not to use words you do not understand. Don't go around calling people SENILE-------before knowing the meaning of the word

 

[irosie91]

The Bible Can We Trust It

The Bible is not the worst Book I have ever read. People like to draw attention to himself. That's why somebody claims war to the Bible. The Bible has sense and logic while Qoran or Torah don't. I don't see the reasons why people shouldn't read it. But trust or not. It is a personal choice.

I've always found the Bible to be a strange book. As its old Testament and New Testament have a very strange relationship, that if pulled out of the context of the christian tradition would have most Christians laughing and pointing.

It would be like taking Buddhism and slapping Hinduism on the back end of it. Buddha was prince and of the warrior caste of venerable tradition of Hinduism. Buddha had his own epiphanies and preached non-violence, meditation, self reflection and an abandonment of attachment. Many students of Buddha wrote down his teachings and compliled them into books.

The Bible would be akin to folks AFTER buddha's death insisting that Buddha was actually a reincarnation of Vishnu. And thus, all of Vishnu's commandments for war, violence and retribution in the name of God put forth in the Bhagavad Gita were what Buddha really meant. And slapping the two together as an 'old and new' testament of Buddha's revelations.

The Bhagavad Gita was a completely different religious tradition centered around a completely different religious figure: Vishnu.. It has almost nothing to do with the teachings of Buddha, and in many cases explicitly contradict it. Just as the Torah and the Teachings of Christ are from two different religious traditions, and overwhelmingly contradict each other. With Yahweh killing people left and right. And Christ calling for love, forgiveness and non-violence.

Its just....odd. I tend to take the 4 Gospels together as representing Christianity better than the Bible.

you are clueless about both the bible and the Baghavad Gita---clearly you never read any of the ancient scriptural writings----I read the bible, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Gita and
SIDDHARTHA GAUTAMA, Try it some time. Siddhartha
(Buddha) was VERY MUCH a hindu. Jesus was a
Pharisee jew and like the Pharisee jews of the time based
his teachings on HILLEL. I find it amazing that the only
Christian I ever heard of who understood that fact was
Ross Perot (of all people)

Alright. Then show us how Vishnu's sermon to Arjuna before the battle with the Kauravas is compatible with the teachings of Buddha. As that sermon is the spiritual core of the Gita.

And remember, Vishnu is trying to convince Arjuna of the righteousness of slaying his own kin in battle because God commanded it.

Good luck with that.

Arjuna -----is on a spiritual journey-------which includes a
paradox. He is asked to fulfill his CASTE obligation----
as he strives to attain enlightenment. His caste obligation
conflicts with his ULTIMATE GOAL-----which is the NIRVANA OF ENLIGHTENMENT -----the general population is STUCK
in the corporeal world -------which the general population does not get to throw off on a wish and a whim <<< very hindu idea (how did I do???)

 

[Skylar]

The Bible Can We Trust It

The Bible is not the worst Book I have ever read. People like to draw attention to himself. That's why somebody claims war to the Bible. The Bible has sense and logic while Qoran or Torah don't. I don't see the reasons why people shouldn't read it. But trust or not. It is a personal choice.

I've always found the Bible to be a strange book. As its old Testament and New Testament have a very strange relationship, that if pulled out of the context of the christian tradition would have most Christians laughing and pointing.

It would be like taking Buddhism and slapping Hinduism on the back end of it. Buddha was prince and of the warrior caste of venerable tradition of Hinduism. Buddha had his own epiphanies and preached non-violence, meditation, self reflection and an abandonment of attachment. Many students of Buddha wrote down his teachings and compliled them into books.

The Bible would be akin to folks AFTER buddha's death insisting that Buddha was actually a reincarnation of Vishnu. And thus, all of Vishnu's commandments for war, violence and retribution in the name of God put forth in the Bhagavad Gita were what Buddha really meant. And slapping the two together as an 'old and new' testament of Buddha's revelations.

The Bhagavad Gita was a completely different religious tradition centered around a completely different religious figure: Vishnu.. It has almost nothing to do with the teachings of Buddha, and in many cases explicitly contradict it. Just as the Torah and the Teachings of Christ are from two different religious traditions, and overwhelmingly contradict each other. With Yahweh killing people left and right. And Christ calling for love, forgiveness and non-violence.

Its just....odd. I tend to take the 4 Gospels together as representing Christianity better than the Bible.

you are clueless about both the bible and the Baghavad Gita---clearly you never read any of the ancient scriptural writings----I read the bible, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Gita and
SIDDHARTHA GAUTAMA, Try it some time. Siddhartha
(Buddha) was VERY MUCH a hindu. Jesus was a
Pharisee jew and like the Pharisee jews of the time based
his teachings on HILLEL. I find it amazing that the only
Christian I ever heard of who understood that fact was
Ross Perot (of all people)

Alright. Then show us how Vishnu's sermon to Arjuna before the battle with the Kauravas is compatible with the teachings of Buddha. As that sermon is the spiritual core of the Gita.

And remember, Vishnu is trying to convince Arjuna of the righteousness of slaying his own kin in battle because God commanded it.

Good luck with that.

Arjuna -----is on a spiritual journey-------which includes a
paradox. He is asked to fulfill his CASTE obligation----
as he strives to attain enlightenment. His caste obligation
conflicts with his ULTIMATE GOAL-----which is the NIRVANA OF ENLIGHTENMENT -----the general population is STUCK
in the corporeal world -------which the general population does not get to throw off on a wish and a whim <<< very hindu idea (how did I do???)

His caste obligation....is slaughtering his relatives. With Vishnu trying to convince Arjuna that he should kill and slaughter them. Because it will show his love of his God.

Where as Buddhists are taught not to kill anything.

These are diametrically opposed philosophies. Where love of God is demonstrated by NOT killing in the latter. And by slaughtering relatives in the former. And no symbolically. Quite literally killing people.

 

[irosie91]

The Bible is not the worst Book I have ever read. People like to draw attention to himself. That's why somebody claims war to the Bible. The Bible has sense and logic while Qoran or Torah don't. I don't see the reasons why people shouldn't read it. But trust or not. It is a personal choice.

I've always found the Bible to be a strange book. As its old Testament and New Testament have a very strange relationship, that if pulled out of the context of the christian tradition would have most Christians laughing and pointing.

It would be like taking Buddhism and slapping Hinduism on the back end of it. Buddha was prince and of the warrior caste of venerable tradition of Hinduism. Buddha had his own epiphanies and preached non-violence, meditation, self reflection and an abandonment of attachment. Many students of Buddha wrote down his teachings and compliled them into books.

The Bible would be akin to folks AFTER buddha's death insisting that Buddha was actually a reincarnation of Vishnu. And thus, all of Vishnu's commandments for war, violence and retribution in the name of God put forth in the Bhagavad Gita were what Buddha really meant. And slapping the two together as an 'old and new' testament of Buddha's revelations.

The Bhagavad Gita was a completely different religious tradition centered around a completely different religious figure: Vishnu.. It has almost nothing to do with the teachings of Buddha, and in many cases explicitly contradict it. Just as the Torah and the Teachings of Christ are from two different religious traditions, and overwhelmingly contradict each other. With Yahweh killing people left and right. And Christ calling for love, forgiveness and non-violence.

Its just....odd. I tend to take the 4 Gospels together as representing Christianity better than the Bible.

you are clueless about both the bible and the Baghavad Gita---clearly you never read any of the ancient scriptural writings----I read the bible, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Gita and
SIDDHARTHA GAUTAMA, Try it some time. Siddhartha
(Buddha) was VERY MUCH a hindu. Jesus was a
Pharisee jew and like the Pharisee jews of the time based
his teachings on HILLEL. I find it amazing that the only
Christian I ever heard of who understood that fact was
Ross Perot (of all people)

Alright. Then show us how Vishnu's sermon to Arjuna before the battle with the Kauravas is compatible with the teachings of Buddha. As that sermon is the spiritual core of the Gita.

And remember, Vishnu is trying to convince Arjuna of the righteousness of slaying his own kin in battle because God commanded it.

Good luck with that.

Arjuna -----is on a spiritual journey-------which includes a
paradox. He is asked to fulfill his CASTE obligation----
as he strives to attain enlightenment. His caste obligation
conflicts with his ULTIMATE GOAL-----which is the NIRVANA OF ENLIGHTENMENT -----the general population is STUCK
in the corporeal world -------which the general population does not get to throw off on a wish and a whim <<< very hindu idea (how did I do???)

His caste obligation....is slaughtering his relatives. With Vishnu trying to convince Arjuna that he should kill and slaughter them. Because it will show his love of his God.

Where as Buddhists are taught not to kill anything.

These are diametrically opposed philosophies. Where love of God is demonstrated by NOT killing in the latter. And by slaughtering relatives in the former. And no symbolically. Quite literally killing people.

right-----and Hinduism is INCLUSIVE------it can deal with
both concepts------kinda simultaneously --------arjuna is
a HINDU -----but so is Siddhartha. A jain who eats an onion is still a JAIN-----nobody excommunicates him

 

[Skylar]

I've always found the Bible to be a strange book. As its old Testament and New Testament have a very strange relationship, that if pulled out of the context of the christian tradition would have most Christians laughing and pointing.

It would be like taking Buddhism and slapping Hinduism on the back end of it. Buddha was prince and of the warrior caste of venerable tradition of Hinduism. Buddha had his own epiphanies and preached non-violence, meditation, self reflection and an abandonment of attachment. Many students of Buddha wrote down his teachings and compliled them into books.

The Bible would be akin to folks AFTER buddha's death insisting that Buddha was actually a reincarnation of Vishnu. And thus, all of Vishnu's commandments for war, violence and retribution in the name of God put forth in the Bhagavad Gita were what Buddha really meant. And slapping the two together as an 'old and new' testament of Buddha's revelations.

The Bhagavad Gita was a completely different religious tradition centered around a completely different religious figure: Vishnu.. It has almost nothing to do with the teachings of Buddha, and in many cases explicitly contradict it. Just as the Torah and the Teachings of Christ are from two different religious traditions, and overwhelmingly contradict each other. With Yahweh killing people left and right. And Christ calling for love, forgiveness and non-violence.

Its just....odd. I tend to take the 4 Gospels together as representing Christianity better than the Bible.

you are clueless about both the bible and the Baghavad Gita---clearly you never read any of the ancient scriptural writings----I read the bible, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Gita and
SIDDHARTHA GAUTAMA, Try it some time. Siddhartha
(Buddha) was VERY MUCH a hindu. Jesus was a
Pharisee jew and like the Pharisee jews of the time based
his teachings on HILLEL. I find it amazing that the only
Christian I ever heard of who understood that fact was
Ross Perot (of all people)

Alright. Then show us how Vishnu's sermon to Arjuna before the battle with the Kauravas is compatible with the teachings of Buddha. As that sermon is the spiritual core of the Gita.

And remember, Vishnu is trying to convince Arjuna of the righteousness of slaying his own kin in battle because God commanded it.

Good luck with that.

Arjuna -----is on a spiritual journey-------which includes a
paradox. He is asked to fulfill his CASTE obligation----
as he strives to attain enlightenment. His caste obligation
conflicts with his ULTIMATE GOAL-----which is the NIRVANA OF ENLIGHTENMENT -----the general population is STUCK
in the corporeal world -------which the general population does not get to throw off on a wish and a whim <<< very hindu idea (how did I do???)

His caste obligation....is slaughtering his relatives. With Vishnu trying to convince Arjuna that he should kill and slaughter them. Because it will show his love of his God.

Where as Buddhists are taught not to kill anything.

These are diametrically opposed philosophies. Where love of God is demonstrated by NOT killing in the latter. And by slaughtering relatives in the former. And no symbolically. Quite literally killing people.

right-----and Hinduism is INCLUSIVE------it can deal with
both concepts------kinda simultaneously --------arjuna is
a HINDU -----but so is Siddhartha. A jain who eats an onion is still a JAIN-----nobody excommunicates him

A Hindu would understand his duty to kill. Especially a kshatriya, which Siddhartha was. Yet Buddha denounced all violence in explicit contradiction of the duties of his varna, as his 8 fold path was an overwhelming rejection of it, and Hinduism.

That Hindusism can include Buddhism is irrelevant. Its if Buddhism can include Hinduism. And as Vishnu's 'if you love God, you'll fucking kill all these people' sermon demonstrates, the answer is overwhelmingly no.

The fundamental character of Vishnu and Buddha are incompatible. Vishnu was a letch, fucking milk maids by the score. Buddha preached abstinence, or at the very least, the restraining of pleasures of the flesh and attachment. Vishnu was a brave warrior. Buddha preached non violence.

They're as different as say.....Yahweh and Jesus. Which is why the Bible is such an odd book.

 

[irosie91]

you are clueless about both the bible and the Baghavad Gita---clearly you never read any of the ancient scriptural writings----I read the bible, the Koran, the Ramayana, the Gita and
SIDDHARTHA GAUTAMA, Try it some time. Siddhartha
(Buddha) was VERY MUCH a hindu. Jesus was a
Pharisee jew and like the Pharisee jews of the time based
his teachings on HILLEL. I find it amazing that the only
Christian I ever heard of who understood that fact was
Ross Perot (of all people)

Alright. Then show us how Vishnu's sermon to Arjuna before the battle with the Kauravas is compatible with the teachings of Buddha. As that sermon is the spiritual core of the Gita.

And remember, Vishnu is trying to convince Arjuna of the righteousness of slaying his own kin in battle because God commanded it.

Good luck with that.

Arjuna -----is on a spiritual journey-------which includes a
paradox. He is asked to fulfill his CASTE obligation----
as he strives to attain enlightenment. His caste obligation
conflicts with his ULTIMATE GOAL-----which is the NIRVANA OF ENLIGHTENMENT -----the general population is STUCK
in the corporeal world -------which the general population does not get to throw off on a wish and a whim <<< very hindu idea (how did I do???)

His caste obligation....is slaughtering his relatives. With Vishnu trying to convince Arjuna that he should kill and slaughter them. Because it will show his love of his God.

Where as Buddhists are taught not to kill anything.

These are diametrically opposed philosophies. Where love of God is demonstrated by NOT killing in the latter. And by slaughtering relatives in the former. And no symbolically. Quite literally killing people.

right-----and Hinduism is INCLUSIVE------it can deal with
both concepts------kinda simultaneously --------arjuna is
a HINDU -----but so is Siddhartha. A jain who eats an onion is still a JAIN-----nobody excommunicates him

A Hindu would understand his duty to kill. Especially a kshatriya, which Siddhartha was. Yet Buddha denounced all violence in explicit contradiction of the duties of his varna, as his 8 fold path was an overwhelming rejection of it, and Hinduism.

That Hindusism can include Buddhism is irrelevant. Its if Buddhism can include Hinduism. And as Vishnu's 'if you love God, you'll fucking kill all these people' sermon demonstrates, the answer is overwhelmingly no.

The fundamental character of Vishnu and Buddha are incompatible. Vishnu was a letch, fucking milk maids by the score. Buddha preached abstinence, or at the very least, the restraining of pleasures of the flesh and attachment. Vishnu was a brave warrior. Buddha preached non violence.

They're as different as say.....Yahweh and Jesus. Which is why the Bible is such an odd book.

I see the conflict as you describe it------as similar----although
I do not agree that Jesus is pacifist on the BUDDHA level.
Jesus is simply a typical Pharisee who is pacifist as opposed
to Pharisees who advocated active resistence. In fact----josephus flavius was a pacifist style Pharisee too. Back in
them thar days--------there was conflict within the Pharisee camp--------the conflict was------the same as the conflict between HINDU arjuna the fighter and hindu arjuna ----on
the threshold of nirvana, This sort of conflict happened all the time WITHIN jewish history as an internecine debate------you just never knew much about it. You seem to have internalized the Christian view of jewish history "us peaceniks vs the JEW REBELS AGAINST THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. Ie the Christian POV that galvanized
the "HOLY" Inquisition. In the context of the history of the
middle east----it is not hard to understand why this conflict
was so prominent------Israel/Judea was right smack in the middle of fights between the east ---ASSYRIA, GREECE -BABYLON and--- the WEST---Egypt-------CHARIOTS ALL OVER THE PLACE

 

[Skylar]

I see the conflict as you describe it------as similar----although
I do not agree that Jesus is pacifist on the BUDDHA level.

I agree. Christ was one ass whipping at the Temple removed from Buddha. But Christ's purpose wasn't punishment, the infliction of harm, or killing. It was to drive them from the Temple. Never did Jesus advocate or command anyone to kill anyone. Though he was rough on herds of swine.

My point is less the similarities between Buddha and Jesus, and more a comparison of contrasts. The contrast Yahweh and Jesus compared with the contrasts of Vishnu and Buddha.

And how patently bizarre it would be to try and cast Buddha as advocating the slaughter of one's own relatives in a war as an expression of God's love. And how equally bizarre it is to try and cast Mr. 'turn the other cheek' with Yahweh's commandments to say, slaughter to Amalekites down to their infants in their cribs.

How the fundamental character of the 'old testament' is so startlingly incompatible with the 'new' version. And how awkward it is to try and cross religions to tack on different and fundamental dissimilar texts together. The Torah no more goes with the Gospels than the Gita goes with the teachings of Buddha.

 

[BreezeWood]

... or have no knowledge of the Bible

.
or care not to read further when fallacy is perceived, considering its history of brutality ?

.

Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

.

Mx: Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

... considering its history of brutality


that is not a perception it is fact, and those who follow that book seem to have the same appeal for its resultant consequences (slavery) throughout history with despair for change to alter future consequences for the better.

it is a political document using its central figure for ulterior motives.

.

 

[Skylar]

... or have no knowledge of the Bible

.
or care not to read further when fallacy is perceived, considering its history of brutality ?

.

Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

.

Mx: Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

... considering its history of brutality


that is not a perception it is fact, and those who follow that book seem to have the same appeal for its resultant consequences (slavery) throughout history with despair for change to alter future consequences for the better.

it is a political document using its central figure for ulterior motives.

.

Most of the violence justified by the Bible is through interpretations of the Old testament. Which had starkly brutal justice. Without it, I think you'd have ended up with a religion far closer to Buddhism than Judaism or Islam.

 

[irosie91]

I see the conflict as you describe it------as similar----although
I do not agree that Jesus is pacifist on the BUDDHA level.

I agree. Christ was one ass whipping at the Temple removed from Buddha. But Christ's purpose wasn't punishment, the infliction of harm, or killing. It was to drive them from the Temple. Never did Jesus advocate or command anyone to kill anyone. Though he was rough on herds of swine.

My point is less the similarities between Buddha and Jesus, and more a comparison of contrasts. The contrast Yahweh and Jesus compared with the contrasts of Vishnu and Buddha.

And how patently bizarre it would be to try and cast Buddha as advocating the slaughter of one's own relatives in a war as an expression of God's love. And how equally bizarre it is to try and cast Mr. 'turn the other cheek' with Yahweh's commandments to say, slaughter to Amalekites down to their infants in their cribs.

How the fundamental character of the 'old testament' is so startlingly incompatible with the 'new' version. And how awkward it is to try and cross religions to tack on different and fundamental dissimilar texts together. The Torah no more goes with the Gospels than the Gita goes with the teachings of Buddha.

lol turn the other cheek DOCTRINE CONSISTS OF JESUS
QUOTING HILLEL-------THE BASIC PHARISEE. Your interpretation that it means-----"if someone tries to kill you----
help him do it" is your mistake. It really means-----if someone in the neighborhood insults you-----let him----do not respond.....just try to be conciliatory. AARON (brother of Moses) had a forte------always CONCILIATORY. Being conciliatory is a Pharisee ideal------"bend like a reed in the wind"<<<same thing

 

[irosie91]

... or have no knowledge of the Bible

.
or care not to read further when fallacy is perceived, considering its history of brutality ?

.

Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

.

Mx: Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

... considering its history of brutality


that is not a perception it is fact, and those who follow that book seem to have the same appeal for its resultant consequences (slavery) throughout history with despair for change to alter future consequences for the better.

it is a political document using its central figure for ulterior motives.

.

Most of the violence justified by the Bible is through interpretations of the Old testament. Which had starkly brutal justice. Without it, I think you'd have ended up with a religion far closer to Buddhism than Judaism or Islam.

what violence is justified by the bible?

 

[Skylar]

lol turn the other cheek DOCTRINE CONSISTS OF JESUS
QUOTING HILLEL-------THE BASIC PHARISEE. Your interpretation that it means-----"if someone tries to kill you----
help him do it" is your mistake.

That's not my interpretation. I'm saying Christ advocating the killing of no one. Not those who were to be stoned under the law, not sinners, not even enemies of Israel like the Romans or the Samaritans. He preached non-violence. And to a large degree, a release of attachment to wealth and physical possessions. Contrast that with the plagues of Egypt or the fate of Sodom or the slaughter of the Amalekites by Yahweh.

The fundamental character of Yahweh and Christ are incomparable. Pretty much completely. And while Christ was a Jew, as Siddartha was a Hindu......the philosophies they espoused were largely a departure of the traditions they came from and a rejection of them.

Which is why trying to haphazardly mash the two together and insist that the Torah's Yahweh was actually the Gospel's Christ makes no more sense than insisting that the Gita's Vishnu/Krishna was actually Buddha.

It just makes no sense. And goes together about as well as mallards and yoga.

 

[Skylar]

... or have no knowledge of the Bible

.
or care not to read further when fallacy is perceived, considering its history of brutality ?

.

Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

.

Mx: Your opinion that it is fallacy does not make it fallacy, just makes it your opinion.

... considering its history of brutality


that is not a perception it is fact, and those who follow that book seem to have the same appeal for its resultant consequences (slavery) throughout history with despair for change to alter future consequences for the better.

it is a political document using its central figure for ulterior motives.

.

Most of the violence justified by the Bible is through interpretations of the Old testament. Which had starkly brutal justice. Without it, I think you'd have ended up with a religion far closer to Buddhism than Judaism or Islam.

what violence is justified by the bible?

Depends on who you ask. The folks in Jericho would probably have told you of a few had they been alive to read the Torah.

 

[irosie91]

lol turn the other cheek DOCTRINE CONSISTS OF JESUS
QUOTING HILLEL-------THE BASIC PHARISEE. Your interpretation that it means-----"if someone tries to kill you----
help him do it" is your mistake.

That's not my interpretation. I'm saying Christ advocating the killing of no one. Not those who were to be stoned under the law, not sinners, not even enemies of Israel like the Romans or the Samaritans. He preached non-violence. And to a large degree, a release of attachment to wealth and physical possessions. Contrast that with the plagues of Egypt or the fate of Sodom or the slaughter of the Amalekites by Yahweh.

The fundamental character of Yahweh and Christ are incomparable. Pretty much completely. And while Christ was a Jew, as Siddartha was a Hindu......the philosophies they espoused were largely a departure of the traditions they came from and a rejection of them.

Which is why trying to haphazardly mash the two together and insist that the Torah's Yahweh was actually the Gospel's Christ makes no more sense than insisting that the Gita's Vishnu/Krishna was actually Buddha.

It just makes no sense. And goes together about as well as mallards and yoga.

you are demonstrating your ignorance of the TIMES----
Jesus lived during the heyday of the PHARISEES----
the Pharisees were the guys who decided that execution
as a penalty for crime must be avoided virtually completely.
You are a victim of a silly lie------you have been told that
the SANHEDRIN wanted to execute Jesus but did NOT
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO BECAUSE ROME
did not allow it-------<<<<BS-----the Senhedrin had given up
capital punishment long before-------no one ever got
executed for "wrong belief". They were just considered a bit nuts. Adultery was not a capital crime either-----not
executing an adulteress was VERY Pharisee at that time.

The NT in its description of the trial of Jesus ----actually describes the rift between SADDUCEES and PHARISEES---
The Sadducees were shills for the romans and ANTI-PHARISEE they were ROMAN appointees as temple priests just as HEROD was a ROMAN APPOINTEE ----the priest CAIPHAS is reviled to this day. -----but they had a problem-------rabbinic (read that Pharisee) authority did not ALLOW execution for even a trumped up charge of blasphemy--------sorry to bust your bubble. Sadducean Judaism is no longer extant. PS the rift between
jews and Samaritans did not actually get violent---sorry to bust your bubble. Samaritans survived----but Sadducees did not (for the record----Herod was not a Pharisee----he was an edomite----he was according to Pharisees not eligible to
be King-----not being of the DAVIDIC LINE----only Judeans
could be King------King david was born in Bethlehem----the city of David. The NT makes a bit of an issue of giving Jesus a link to DAVID ----tribe of Judah---descendant of David. Just read
the book-----it is very interesting if you know what you are reading

 

[Skylar]

you are demonstrating your ignorance of the TIMES----
Jesus lived during the heyday of the PHARISEES----
the Pharisees were the guys who decided that execution
as a penalty for crime must be avoided virtually completely.

More accurately, I think you just demonstrated your ignorance of what you're replying to.

And how does that in any way contradict or have the slightest relevance to my point that Jesus never advocated the killing of anyone? That he advocated a non-violent philosophy? That his teachings included a general rejection of wealth and physical possessions?

You are a victim of a silly lie------you have been told that
the SANHEDRIN wanted to execute Jesus but did NOT
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO BECAUSE ROME
did not allow it-------<<<<BS-----the Senhedrin had given up
capital punishment long before-------no one ever got
executed for "wrong belief". They were just considered a bit nuts. Adultery was not a capital crime either-----not executing an adulteress was VERY Pharisee at that time.

Where then did Christ advocate the killing of anyone? If its a 'simple lie' that I've swallowed, then it should be remarkably simple for you to do so. If your post is a big bucket of 'SQUIRREL!' then you may have a slightly harder time.

jews and Samaritans did not actually get violent---sorry to bust your bubble. Samaritans survived----but Sadducees did not (for the record----Herod was not a Pharisee----he was an edomite----he was according to Pharisees not eligible to
be King-----not being of the DAVIDIC LINE----only Judeans
could be King------King david was born in Bethlehem----the city of David.

You have just obliterated points I've never raised. I never claimed that jews and Samaratians got 'violent'. I'm saying that Jesus never advocated killing anyone. Not even enemies of Israel like the Romans or Samaritans.

So beyond the strawmen that just riddle your post, are you actually going to address the points I've raised? Specifically that Christ never advocated any killing, offered a starkly non-violent / aesthetic philosophy that is fundamentally incompatible with the rampant slaughter and killing commanded by the Torah's Yahweh?

 

[irosie91]

you are demonstrating your ignorance of the TIMES----
Jesus lived during the heyday of the PHARISEES----
the Pharisees were the guys who decided that execution
as a penalty for crime must be avoided virtually completely.

More accurately, I think you just demonstrated your ignorance of what you're replying to.

And how does that in any way contradict or have the slightest relevance to my point that Jesus never advocated the killing of anyone? That he advocated a non-violent philosophy? That his teachings included a general rejection of wealth and physical possessions?

You are a victim of a silly lie------you have been told that
the SANHEDRIN wanted to execute Jesus but did NOT
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO BECAUSE ROME
did not allow it-------<<<<BS-----the Senhedrin had given up
capital punishment long before-------no one ever got
executed for "wrong belief". They were just considered a bit nuts. Adultery was not a capital crime either-----not executing an adulteress was VERY Pharisee at that time.

Where then did Christ advocate the killing of anyone? If its a 'simple lie' that I've swallowed, then it should be remarkably simple for you to do so. If your post is a big bucket of 'SQUIRREL!' then you may have a slightly harder time.

jews and Samaritans did not actually get violent---sorry to bust your bubble. Samaritans survived----but Sadducees did not (for the record----Herod was not a Pharisee----he was an edomite----he was according to Pharisees not eligible to
be King-----not being of the DAVIDIC LINE----only Judeans
could be King------King david was born in Bethlehem----the city of David.

You have just obliterated points I've never raised. I never claimed that jews and Samaratians got 'violent'. I'm saying that Jesus never advocated killing anyone. Not even enemies of Israel like the Romans or Samaritans.

So beyond the strawmen that just riddle your post, are you actually going to address the points I've raised? Specifically that Christ never advocated any killing, offered a starkly non-violent / aesthetic philosophy that is fundamentally incompatible with the rampant slaughter and killing commanded by the Torah's Yahweh?

Nope-----I did not say that Jesus "advocated" killing----try reading the book again-------he neither advocated nor specifically preached against it. "love your neighbor as
your self" is a Hillel/Pharisee concept------it does not mean-----"never fight an attacker" ---------"Cooperate with them romans for now" was a very popular idea at that time---as was ---"lets get rid of them" a constant debate of
the internecine kind-------Jesus was a very typical Pharisee of his time Can you show me where Jesus said "never fight anyone-----let them kill you" ??? or "that Jericho thing was a big sin"? or "my remote relative, David, was a big time bastard for killing some people"??? Jesus was an
advocate of passive resistence as the best course for NOW---assuming that he was correctly quoted in the NT. The story of the adulteress and "cast the first stone"----was about
as PHARISEE as anyone could get. Pharisees won-----which is why Israel does not have capital punishment. Baptist Texas does

PS-----Buddhists do kill ------sometimes. tamils don't stand a chance in sri lanka. Jains do not eat onions.

 

[Skylar]

Nope-----I did not say that Jesus "advocated" killing----try reading the book again-------he neither advocated nor specifically preached against it. "love your neighbor as
your self" is a Hillel/Pharisee concept------it does not mean-----"never fight an attacker" ---------"Cooperate with them romans for now" was a very popular idea at that time---as was ---"lets get rid of them" a constant debate of the internecine kind-------Jesus was a very typical Pharisee of his time

Since we've established that Jesus never advocated killing anyone, why don't we move onto the part where you actually disagree with any point I've made. Or even address them. Because so far you've been railing against arguments I've simply never made.

And does the term 'strawman' mean anything to you?

Can you show me where Jesus said "never fight anyone-----let them kill you" ??? or "that Jericho thing was a big sin"? or "my remote relative, David, was a big time bastard for killing some people"??? Jesus was an

Can you show me where I've said 'never fight anyone - let them kill you', or attributed that position to Jesus? I've said that he never advocated killing anyone. That the Gospels advocate non-violence, a vague asceticism, charity and universal love.

And that the fundamental character of Jesus is incompatible with the commanded conquest, slaughter, war and plagues upon children of Yahweh. Anymore than Vishnu and his proclivity toward milk maid fuckery and sermons of the righteousness of the wholesale slaughter of one's own family had nothing to do with Buddha.

So far, you starkly refuse to discuss any of it. Or even disagree with it. Oh, you'll talk about Pharisees, edomites, Baptist Texans and Sri Lanka. But not the points I've raised or much of anything you're responding to. Would you care to start? Or do I even need to be here for those random monologues of yours?