The Gospel of Unbelief

[MissileMan]

What? There's a separate set of laws for christians and non chrisitians, that we seek to enforce on the world through a set of religious courts?

Are you tripping?

Where does it say that Jews are exempt from the Noahide laws? And since you could make an argument that they seem to have a lot in common with the Ten Commandments, what's the problem?

 

[jillian]

Where does it say that Jews are exempt from the Noahide laws? And since you could make an argument that they seem to have a lot in common with the Ten Commandments, what's the problem?

I think our friend is a conspiracy theorist. :teeth:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Where does it say that Jews are exempt from the Noahide laws? And since you could make an argument that they seem to have a lot in common with the Ten Commandments, what's the problem?

They have extra laws and are considered a different class of people, in the noahide system.

The problem is worshipping jesus will be considered idolatry.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think our friend is a conspiracy theorist. :teeth:

Yeah. There's no such thing as Tikkun Olam Or a Noahide court system. Just like Jihad is about a person's individual struggle to submit to the will of god.

 

[jillian]

Yeah. There's no such thing as Tikkun Olam Or a Noahide court system. Just like Jihad is about a person's individual struggle to submit to the will of god.

I'll try this one last time...

Tikkun Olam is nothing more than a desire to make the world a better place. It's up there with tzadukah (charity) as an obligation Jews have to the world.

The Noahide laws are the only laws that it was felt appropriate that gentiles be bound to because they are nothing more than the 10 commandments. Funny that you'd think Christianity could be likened to idolotry..... I don't think that's a leap anyone could ever make.

What you're talking about is nothing more than: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". You know, the 10 Commandments...

There are no "noahide courts" as far as I know. There are only Bet Din's which are rabbinical courts that hear disputes only on consent of the parties and only resolve disputes among Jews.

And finally, how would a miniscule percentage of people ever impose their will on everyone else?

You sound like the folk who think "the Jews run everything". If there's some sort of cabal out there, no one's ever told me about it.

Time for work...

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'll try this one last time...

Tikkun Olam is nothing more than a desire to make the world a better place.

Yes. Through socialism.

It's up there with tzadukah (charity) as an obligation Jews have to the world.

The Noahide laws are the only laws that it was felt appropriate that gentiles be bound to

By what authority do you bind others to laws?

because they are nothing more than the 10 commandments. Funny that you'd think Christianity could be likened to idolotry..... I don't think that's a leap anyone could ever make.

What is the official view of Judaism toward christianity?

What you're talking about is nothing more than: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". You know, the 10 Commandments...

So you admit believing in christ's divinity isn't quite kosher.

There are no "noahide courts" as far as I know.

Not yet.

There are only Bet Din's which are rabbinical courts that hear disputes only on consent of the parties and only resolve disputes among Jews.

And finally, how would a miniscule percentage of people ever impose their will on everyone else?

You sound like the folk who think "the Jews run everything". If there's some sort of cabal out there, no one's ever told me about it.

Time for work...

A minority can never dominate a majority? Tell me more lies.

 

[LOki]

Lots of beliefs are self-contradictory. Who said Secularism is necessarily logical?

I certainly didn't, but I am saying that the definition of secularism must be logical if it is going to be meaningful.

The dictionary? Using a definition in the dictionary to define something conclusively is an "act of faith" in itself...all hail Webster our new god!

If you paid more attention to what I wrote, and less attention to what you wished I wrote, you'd be able to note that I rejected the dictionary definition that is logically inconsistent, and YOU adopted--upon faith only--the sole definition that is self-contradictory to support you patently bullshit assertion that secularists deny God and therefore are Atheists.

I agree there is no shortage of dumbfucks, especially in the Democrat Party.

You're considering Hillary for president then?

Secularism is rejecting religion/God in favor of the worldly/no God.

No. Only by your demonstrably bullshit definition.

It requires a belief in the worldly without relgion/God.

No. Only by your demonstrably bullshit definition.

Therefore a Secularist must be an Atheist to be consistent.

No. Only by your demonstrably bullshit definition.

And you yourself said Atheism is a religion.

Yes. By the definition agreed upon. You don't totaly suck at this! Congradulations!

Once again, the rejection of religion/God necessitates a belief in no religion/no God. You can't have it both ways.

No. Only by your demonstrably bullshit definition.

If they know that religion/God exists, how can they reject its existence in the world? If they don't know that religion/God exists, then how can they reject something they don't know?

I am not at all surprised that Mr. BullshitDefinition might **** this up too when any retard could parse out that religion and God are NOT THE ******* SAME THING!!!!! The existence of God may be in question, but it is absolutely certain that religion exists.

That is why--PAY ATTENTION!!!!--That is why secularists do not reject religion as you assert.

Secularists believe in the existence of religion--PAY ATTENTION!!!!--They believe in the existence of religion based on fact, not on faith.

Since secularism CANNOT be a religion, if secularism rejects religion per agreed upon definition of religion; AND since the secularist belief in the existence of religion IS NOT based on faith, secularism cannot be a religion per the agreed upon definition of religion.

It is not logically or factually possible for you to be correct on this--give up.

Why not use nihilism? It's really what you're after anyway--unless what you're really after is the Christian theocracy I suspect you're after.

I am not after a Christian theocracy. You Secularist guys are the pathetic ones. For some reason you can't tolerate individual beliefs being expressed from EVERY type of American.

You are not talking about me.

You are not talking about secularists.

Yes I am.

No, you're not. You may be talking about a competing religion (i.e.: Atheism), or you might be talking about nihilism, but you certainly are not talking about secularism and you are not talking about me.

Secularists are the ones who are attempting to rid our country of every shred of religious reference. We can't have Christmas trees in the public square because we must "separate church and state". That's an example of the intolerance of the so-called tolerance of Secularism.

<blockquote>ScreamingEagle's Argument Paraphrased:
The Atheists that are trying to wipe out every and any instance and reference to Christianity in our country, are using secular arguments. Secularists are therefore Atheists, who are trying to wipe out every and any instance and reference to Christianity in our country.</blockquote>By your own bullshit logic I should be able to assert that Neo-Nazi white supremeists use Christian arguments to promote their Nazi racism--and therefore, Christains are Nazi racists. Correct? I don't even have come up with a bullshit definition of racist, Nazi, or Christian to make your bullshit "Masked Man" logic work.

A man cannot separate his religion from himself...

Stipulated.

A man cannot separate ... his government from himself.

Bullshit. Reference the Declaration of Independence.

A man cannot separate his religion from himself nor his government from himself. They are all interrelated. According to your insane logic of secularism nobody who is religious could be a representative in the government. That would mean only about 10% of the people in the U.S. (the non-religious Secularists) could serve in the government.

No Mr. Christian*Nation*Uber*Alles--that's YOUR insane logic of secularism.

Sure, you believe in Freedom of Religion.... but not anywhere in our government, right? Just exactly where do you draw the line?

I draw the line at religion in government--I draw the line at practicing religion as a function of government or as an appurtenance of government; I draw the line at Government religion explicitly, or implicitly established; I draw the line at religion supported, promoted, or endorsed at (governmental) gunpoint.

I really must wonder if you would be railing so hard against secularism if the majority of the religious in this country did not share in, what I presume is, your religion. What if Akbar the Wanderer showed up and establised the first colonies here?<blockquote>Variation on ScreamingEagle's Paraphrased Argument:
The Christians that are trying to wipe out every and any instance and reference to Islam in our country, are using secular arguments. Secularists are therefore Christians, who are trying to wipe out every and any instance and reference to Islam in our country.</blockquote>I'm willing to bet the muslims would be asserting that secularists reject religion (at least valid religion as they understand it) as you do, for the same bullshit reasons. I am also willing to bet that you would be a proponent of secularism because separating church and state protects (not rejects) your religion (if that religion is, in this case, Christianity).

I take it that last bet back. Having already experienced your zealous adherence to fallacies of logic, your disingenuous definitions, and your disregard for reason, the bet I'm more comfortable making is that you'd advocate for the Islamic theocracy on the basis that secularists reject religion, including Islam, including their own religion (as you define secularism), and including Christianity--the religion secularists are protecting.

Religion and government are intertwined. No silly definition, logical or not, is going to erase that.

From this point forward, never, NEVER assert again that you are not a theocrat. Your theocratic aggenda is patently clear, pal. You may deny that the theocracy you're advocating is Christian, but you just revealed, in no uncertain terms, that your aggenda is government by religion.

 

[5stringJeff]

You mean the bible doesn't say:



So how was it "debunked"?

And no, didn't see that West Wing.

Indeed it does say that. However, if you read through the entire Bible, you'll see that much of the Old Testament law dealing with sanitation, animal sacrifices, clothing laws, etc., was overridden and replaced with the covenant of grace through Christ.

 

[jillian]

Indeed it does say that. However, if you read through the entire Bible, you'll see that much of the Old Testament law dealing with sanitation, animal sacrifices, clothing laws, etc., was overridden and replaced with the covenant of grace through Christ.

I've read both testaments. And you're correct that IF one believes Jesus was the messiah, then they are absolved from the laws as set forth in Leviticus. But, like much else, the bible was written from an ancient perspective and those rules would be silly today, in any event.

Thing is, I see a lot of Christians relying on Leviticus to condemn homosexuals. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I certainly didn't, but I am saying that the definition of secularism must be logical if it is going to be meaningful.If you paid more attention to what I wrote, and less attention to what you wished I wrote, you'd be able to note that I rejected the dictionary definition that is logically inconsistent, and YOU adopted--upon faith only--the sole definition that is self-contradictory to support you patently bullshit assertion that secularists deny God and therefore are Atheists.You're considering Hillary for president then?No. Only by your demonstrably bullshit definition.No. Only by your demonstrably bullshit definition.No. Only by your demonstrably bullshit definition.Yes. By the definition agreed upon. You don't totaly suck at this! Congradulations!No. Only by your demonstrably bullshit definition.I am not at all surprised that Mr. BullshitDefinition might **** this up too when any retard could parse out that religion and God are NOT THE ******* SAME THING!!!!! The existence of God may be in question, but it is absolutely certain that religion exists.

That is why--PAY ATTENTION!!!!--That is why secularists do not reject religion as you assert.

Secularists believe in the existence of religion--PAY ATTENTION!!!!--They believe in the existence of religion based on fact, not on faith.

Since secularism CANNOT be a religion, if secularism rejects religion per agreed upon definition of religion; AND since the secularist belief in the existence of religion IS NOT based on faith, secularism cannot be a religion per the agreed upon definition of religion.

It is not logically or factually possible for you to be correct on this--give up.No, you're not. You may be talking about a competing religion (i.e.: Atheism), or you might be talking about nihilism, but you certainly are not talking about secularism and you are not talking about me.<blockquote>ScreamingEagle's Argument Paraphrased:
The Atheists that are trying to wipe out every and any instance and reference to Christianity in our country, are using secular arguments. Secularists are therefore Atheists, who are trying to wipe out every and any instance and reference to Christianity in our country.</blockquote>By your own bullshit logic I should be able to assert that Neo-Nazi white supremeists use Christian arguments to promote their Nazi racism--and therefore, Christains are Nazi racists. Correct? I don't even have come up with a bullshit definition of racist, Nazi, or Christian to make your bullshit "Masked Man" logic work.Stipulated.Bullshit. Reference the Declaration of Independence.No Mr. Christian*Nation*Uber*Alles--that's YOUR insane logic of secularism.I draw the line at religion in government--I draw the line at practicing religion as a function of government or as an appurtenance of government; I draw the line at Government religion explicitly, or implicitly established; I draw the line at religion supported, promoted, or endorsed at (governmental) gunpoint.

I really must wonder if you would be railing so hard against secularism if the majority of the religious in this country did not share in, what I presume is, your religion. What if Akbar the Wanderer showed up and establised the first colonies here?<blockquote>Variation on ScreamingEagle's Paraphrased Argument:
The Christians that are trying to wipe out every and any instance and reference to Islam in our country, are using secular arguments. Secularists are therefore Christians, who are trying to wipe out every and any instance and reference to Islam in our country.</blockquote>I'm willing to bet the muslims would be asserting that secularists reject religion (at least valid religion as they understand it) as you do, for the same bullshit reasons. I am also willing to bet that you would be a proponent of secularism because separating church and state protects (not rejects) your religion (if that religion is, in this case, Christianity).

I take it that last bet back. Having already experienced your zealous adherence to fallacies of logic, your disingenuous definitions, and your disregard for reason, the bet I'm more comfortable making is that you'd advocate for the Islamic theocracy on the basis that secularists reject religion, including Islam, including their own religion (as you define secularism), and including Christianity--the religion secularists are protecting.From this point forward, never, NEVER assert again that you are not a theocrat. Your theocratic aggenda is patently clear, pal. You may deny that the theocracy you're advocating is Christian, but you just revealed, in no uncertain terms, that your aggenda is government by religion.

I'll remember not to set myself up in a box with you in the future.

Despite all these arguments, it does not say anywhere in our Constitution that our government must be defined as "Secular". However, your arguments have given me a new found respect for what the Supreme Court is facing today.

You may claim it, but I am not a theocrat. I believe in a "secular" government (more like definition #2). However I don't take it quite to the extremes that you obviously do because it is inherently impossible to separate a man and his beliefs from participation in government, or should I say self-government. As long as there is no establishment of religion where no person is being forced into any particular religion or set of beliefs, I am OK with people expressing their religious beliefs or any other beliefs on government property. I am also OK with laws being instituted that may have their fundamental origin in religious concepts as long as they are laws passed by the majority and they do not force any person into any particular religion. I don't think people should have to hide their religious beliefs in this country at any time. We are supposed to have have freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Per your logic we must reject all aspects of religion from all aspects of government in order to be "Secular". I find this impossible if we are to have a free country.

 

[5stringJeff]

I've read both testaments. And you're correct that IF one believes Jesus was the messiah, then they are absolved from the laws as set forth in Leviticus. But, like much else, the bible was written from an ancient perspective and those rules would be silly today, in any event.

Thing is, I see a lot of Christians relying on Leviticus to condemn homosexuals. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

There are a couple of reasons for this. First, the abolition of the dietary, sanitary etc. laws as a result of the new covenant (i.e. salvation through faith in Jesus) did not abolist the moral law. For example, it is still a sin to commit murder, or to dishonor one's parents, etc. Second, homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Leviticus happens to have the most clear condemnation of it.

 

[jillian]

There are a couple of reasons for this. First, the abolition of the dietary, sanitary etc. laws as a result of the new covenant (i.e. salvation through faith in Jesus) did not abolist the moral law. For example, it is still a sin to commit murder, or to dishonor one's parents, etc. Second, homosexuality is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Leviticus happens to have the most clear condemnation of it.

Dishonoring one's parents and committing murder are also in the Ten Commandments, from which Christians weren't released.

Jesus wouldn't have hated anyone, regardless. And I don't believe he ever spoke to homosexuality, though he had a lot to say about caring for the poor and sick.

 

[5stringJeff]

Dishonoring one's parents and committing murder are also in the Ten Commandments, from which Christians weren't released.

Jesus wouldn't have hated anyone, regardless. And I don't believe he ever spoke to homosexuality, though he had a lot to say about caring for the poor and sick.

I never said that Christians should hate homosexuals. Indeed, we are supposed to love people as we love ourselves. And just because Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, we shouldn't conclude that He tacitly approved of it.

 

[jillian]

I never said that Christians should hate homosexuals. Indeed, we are supposed to love people as we love ourselves. And just because Jesus never spoke about homosexuality, we shouldn't conclude that He tacitly approved of it.

But he might have said that they shouldn't be discriminated against either. He was a pretty smart guy.

 

[dmp]

But he might have said that they shouldn't be discriminated against either. He was a pretty smart guy.

Christ tells us to discriminate against Sin. We are not to condone sin. (shrug).

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Christ tells us to discriminate against Sin. We are not to condone sin. (shrug).

Sin, but not the sin-ner.

 

[dmp]

Sin, but not the sin-ner.

Yes. The sin-ner at times too. There are plenty of examples about rooting-out sin from a congregation and junk.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

But he might have said that they shouldn't be discriminated against either. He was a pretty smart guy.

What's the jewish community's stance on gays? Is it split between reformed and orthodox? i would imagine so, but I don't know.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Yes. The sin-ner at times too. There are plenty of examples about rooting-out sin from a congregation and junk.

That becomes a question for interpretation between the different sects of Christianity, then.

 

[dmp]

That becomes a question for interpretation between the different sects of Christianity, then.

Not true - All sects of Christianity MUST believe the Bible. Without that baseline of belief, they are NOT christians.