| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I don't deny that there may have been pagan rites being being celebrated during
> those times of year. The shortest day of the year and the equinox are natural
> times for celebrations. Early Christians may have decided to celebrate the
> coming of their savior at the same time as pagans were celebrating whatever
> they celebrated and effectively absconded the pagans, but they wouldn't have
> stolen their practices, merely "their" day.
You are completely missing or intentionally avoiding the fact that many Xtians
practice Xmas and Easter in a manner that precisely involves appropriations of
pagan rites -- and not just the dates. You take lengthy arguments, skip over
everything you don't like, and answer to inconsequentials. Did you think my
argument about specific pagan rites hinged on mere dates? This is why it is
tedious to debate with you -- you miss the mark continually, and pull that
stupid "my beliefs" trump card out of your ass every time. Here I am trying
to argue within your own realm and you either don't read the argument, don't
understand the argument, or ignore it because you can't answer to it.
Do you put up an Xmas Tree every year? I showed that this was condemned in
Jeremiah. That's just one tiny example. There are many more pagan rites that
have been appropriated as Xmas rites.
You lose this argument on every count, read the evidence I directed you to.
Your denial of this fact is more than sad. It's sickening. It's as if there
is the reality the rest of us live in, and then the reality inhabited by John
Neal.
> How would you define a "serious" Christian?
One that believes in a static immutable god with eternal laws that were the
same in the Old Testament as in the New Testament. Someone that relies on
something like a literal intrepretation of the Bible instead of imbuing
everything with specialized or personal meanings. Someone that actually
follows the teachings of the red letter Jesus instead of whatever they want.
Someone that follows biblical laws instead of their own whimsy. Someone that
keeps the biblically prescribed holy days and not pagan traditions. Etc.
Yes, it's a lot to ask, and few meet the criteria. But that is probably one
of the biggest sticking points non-believers have with believers: You want to
convert us to your belief system and force us to adopt your values; but at
the same time you want the freedom to pick and choose from your own
immutable sacred texts whatever suits your current or personal purposes.
If you can't do the above things as an Xtian, why bother calling yourself an
Xtian? Just admit that you do what you want when you want to do it. You are a
law unto yourself.
> The *understanding* of the Law at that time had become a stumbling block to the
> Jews. They had become so preoccupied with following the law that they lost
> sight of the *purpose* of the Law.
Well, in my cite Jesus is talking about added customs overlaying the laws of
Moses, not mosaic law per se. So they weren't just preoccupied with following
Mosaic law, they had added to it with things that didn't matter (sound like
anyone you know, John? Is this more proof that you cannot read or understand
what you read?). Jesus was championing the mosiac law and putting down the
customs created by others. I frankly don't give a damn about "Pharisaic"
interpretation any more than I care about your own personal interpretation of
these texts. I can't see why it can't be taken at face value, provided the
translation is considered essentially accurate.
Refusing to submit to faulty interpretations is something even Jesus
contended with.
> > If the above is supposed to be Jesus repudiating Mosaic law, I must be
> > reading it all wrong.
> You are.
No, I am not. Please see the red letter words of Jesus...
Mathew 5:17-20
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come
to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments,
and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called
great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your
righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees,
ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Not "one jot or one tittle" seems very specific to me, John. Does it seem
vague to you? Seems like he is also claiming the Scribes and the Pharisees
don't know how to worship, or worship wrongly.
> Jesus hasn't abolished the Law so much as he's provided the correct
> interpretation of it. In fact, he sums up the Law here: "Here is a new
> commandment that I give unto you: love one another, as I have loved you."
Sounds like an addition, not a summation. He is adding to the law, John.
What's more, Jesus said this to his disciples during the last supper:
John 13:35
By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to
another.
Why do we have to expand this passage beyond it's obvious and ordinary
meaning? Isn't it, taken in context, a command to a specific few and not a
blanket command for everyone else?
> Well, I suppose you'd know. I find your ad hominems of my ignorance a little
> amusing since it appears that you are the one who is ignorant WRT to this topic.
Only in your dreams, John. And I think I have shown this...
Your interpretations of biblical quotations seem to rely on three things:
1) quotes taken out of context
2) internal contradictions
3) specialized meanings (non literal)]
No thanks. I think I am done with the Bible according to John Neal.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Okay, so you are saying that some Christians incorporate pagan traditions into their celebrations of Christmas and Easter. (...) That may be. As far as Christmas trees go, I think what has happened is that traditions have been borrowed and (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) those times of year. The shortest day of the year and the equinox are natural times for celebrations. Early Christians may have decided to celebrate the coming of their savior at the same time as pagans were celebrating whatever they (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
