NationStates

As an ex-Catholic I was taught to take the Bible literally, I even had to drink wine after it had been converted to Jesus' blood through communion, that's how literally we took it.

I read somewhere and thought I might ask... doesn't the Talmud teach that having sex with Goats is ok with God... I mean you don't believe in God so God aside but do you really believe beastality is good for society?

The Theban Legion wrote:I read somewhere and thought I might ask... doesn't the Talmud teach that having sex with Goats is ok with God... I mean you don't believe in God so God aside but do you really believe beastality is good for society.

Seriously?

No.



Leviticus 18:23
'Do not have sex with any kind of animal. You would become unclean by doing so.'

Leviticus 18:23
'Neither should a woman present herself to an animal for sex. It is a perversion.'

The Talmud does say though if a man or a woman has sex with an animal they should be put to death.

Just another Georgizm wrote:

Meryuma wrote:Why don't you consider Lutherans heretics? They invented Protestantism and sola scriptura.

If you hate Martin Luther King Jr. then you're a racist and that's that

I don't think you know what he means by Lutherans..
Besides, hating him wouldn't make you a racist. People can not like black people without it being about their race, friend.

Menassa wrote:

Seperates wrote:So I assume Judaism is fairly illogical as well?

Super fairly illogical.... (most) all of the arguments against god work with Judaism.... and then there's the Talmud.... and the 'oral law'

Figured as much, seeing as Catholcism is a fairly close dirivtive of Judahism, despite the whole Christ thing

My main issue therein with your argument, is one that admittedly, I know you Distruzio, probably wouldn't even disagree with me on.

Principally, the issue is the danger inherent in present the Church as infallible, because it will inevitably also present the hierarchy within the church as "infallible" but this is not so.

As you rightly mention, the infallible nature of the Church comes not from any individual of any hierarchy of any sect, it does not make all that the Pope says from the throne "correct" but instead, means that any mistake in scripture made by men in the Church will be corrected by the Church. The Holy Spirit works within the Church to correct false doctrines through inspiring men to dissent from them.

This is in my mind the place where protestants have done a real service to the Global Body of Christ, our dissent brought the (Western/Roman Catholic) Church to reevaluate the mistakes it had made in doctrine. It corrected what was wrong with Church beliefs.

However, and I blame you for it Distruzio, I'm coming around more and more to the argument, and rightly history seems to be beading down on it, that we Protestants went too far, our schism while not heretical has encouraged heretical practice and by-and-by Protestants account for the lion's share of the blame for the modern perception of the Church (as a whole) as stodgy, ignorant and unwilling to accept plain facts.

There are I think some wholly positive things that come from the movement of the Church I was born into, we have a lot to do with the rise of religious tolerance, I think we have renewed and perhaps continue to renew faith in a way that keeps it from being forgotten, we have brought a new-found evangelism that I find the Orthodox and Catholic Sects of our Church to be sorely lacking. Our faith is a boisterous one, and it's an issue particularly in where the protestants are so far afield of Biblical tradition that we have inadvertantly scared many away from faith, but we are also winning new converts much faster than the more traditional Churches.

The Sola Scriptura movement is in part to blame. That is indeed to say Protestantism is the sect most ripely in need of correction from the Holy Spirit and the Church at large today. I think Distruzio, that you and I are a part of this dissent that will bring it back into the line with the Truth of Church of Jesus Christ.

Seperates wrote:

Menassa wrote:Super fairly illogical.... (most) all of the arguments against god work with Judaism.... and then there's the Talmud.... and the 'oral law'

Figured as much, seeing as Catholcism is a fairly close dirivtive of Judahism, despite the whole Christ thing

Yeah but there are a group of religious Jews who seek to uproot the missionaries from their midst. That's essentially were the clash is..... Jesus Christ..... and the murder of millions of innocents in his name.

Menassa wrote:

Seperates wrote:Figured as much, seeing as Catholcism is a fairly close dirivtive of Judahism, despite the whole Christ thing

Yeah but there are a group of religious Jews who seek to uproot the missionaries from their midst. That's essentially were the clash is..... Jesus Christ..... and the murder of millions of innocents in his name.

Hooray for peace and love and all that bullshit.

I mean really... if Jesus was really a great man, you'd think he'd be more precise in his directions, rather than leaving it up to interpretation... Or, you know, kept a diary.

Seperates wrote:

Menassa wrote:Yeah but there are a group of religious Jews who seek to uproot the missionaries from their midst. That's essentially were the clash is..... Jesus Christ..... and the murder of millions of innocents in his name.

Hooray for peace and love and all that bullshit.

I mean really... if Jesus was really a great man, you'd think he'd be more precise in his directions, rather than leaving it up to interpretation... Or, you know, kept a diary.

Yeah that would have been cool..... like the writers of some OT books not the Pentateuch though.

Menassa wrote:

Seperates wrote:Hooray for peace and love and all that bullshit.

I mean really... if Jesus was really a great man, you'd think he'd be more precise in his directions, rather than leaving it up to interpretation... Or, you know, kept a diary.

Yeah that would have been cool..... like the writers of some OT books not the Pentateuch though.

Exactly... But no, he just had to be illiterate for all we know...

Seperates wrote:

Menassa wrote:Yeah that would have been cool..... like the writers of some OT books not the Pentateuch though.

Exactly... But no, he just had to be illiterate for all we know...

The Talmud speaks of the men called Yeshu and Bar Stada..... (bar means son of) and these people were very literate and Yeshu had offended his rabbi so he was ex-communicated..... Bar Stada brought magic with him from Egypt.

Menassa wrote:

Seperates wrote:Exactly... But no, he just had to be illiterate for all we know...

The Talmud speaks of the men called Yeshu and Bar Stada..... (bar means son of) and these people were very literate and Yeshu had offended his rabbi so he was ex-communicated..... Bar Stada brought magic with him from Egypt.

Could have been Jesus... but then, there were many doomsday prophets during the time of Roman occupation.

Seperates wrote:

Menassa wrote:The Talmud speaks of the men called Yeshu and Bar Stada..... (bar means son of) and these people were very literate and Yeshu had offended his rabbi so he was ex-communicated..... Bar Stada brought magic with him from Egypt.

Could have been Jesus... but then, there were many doomsday prophets during the time of Roman occupation.

It may have..... I have a feeling not Bar Stada though.... many people came to Israel from Egypt.... though why he is so special he gets to be involved in the Talmud is a mystery to me.

Seperates wrote:

Menassa wrote:Yeah but there are a group of religious Jews who seek to uproot the missionaries from their midst. That's essentially were the clash is..... Jesus Christ..... and the murder of millions of innocents in his name.

Hooray for peace and love and all that bullshit.

I mean really... if Jesus was really a great man, you'd think he'd be more precise in his directions, rather than leaving it up to interpretation... Or, you know, kept a diary.

I imagine Christ might have bothered with keeping a written diary if it weren't for that whole. Having only three years of ministry before His violent death thing.

Not many of the Old Testament Heroes were killed so early in life.

Admittedly, one does raise the question of why Christ, knowing His mission and it's inevitable outcome didn't make a greater effort to be recorded then and there. We don't really have any proof that He didn't though. It could very well explain the Q source if Christ had an immediate written record that was never widely copied. Perhaps because of the nature of the Early Church both as persecuted (being in danger by holding the record) and dispersed (lacking the resources to reproduce the record) led mainly by living witnesses and disciples of Christ (who would not need the record to testify to them) and was afterwards forgotten when the words of the Apostles were taken down (perhaps again because the bulk of the record was contained entirely within the completed Gospels.)

Menassa wrote:

Seperates wrote:Could have been Jesus... but then, there were many doomsday prophets during the time of Roman occupation.

It may have..... I have a feeling not Bar Stada though.... many people came to Israel from Egypt.... though why he is so special he gets to be involved in the Talmud is a mystery to me.

It was probably just town gossip recorded as history.

Seperates wrote:

Menassa wrote:It may have..... I have a feeling not Bar Stada though.... many people came to Israel from Egypt.... though why he is so special he gets to be involved in the Talmud is a mystery to me.

It was probably just town gossip recorded as history.

Hmm unlikly only 'very important' stories make it in to the Talmud..... like what happened when Titus breached the temple..... and other fun things.

Menassa wrote:

Seperates wrote:It was probably just town gossip recorded as history.

Hmm unlikly only 'very important' stories make it in to the Talmud..... like what happened when Titus breached the temple..... and other fun things.

Seems like a very specific instance for Jesus.

If for no other reason then the fact that he was, if not the only claimed "prophet" of the time, he was certainly one of the more notable.

The Merchant Republics wrote:

Seperates wrote:Hooray for peace and love and all that bullshit.

I mean really... if Jesus was really a great man, you'd think he'd be more precise in his directions, rather than leaving it up to interpretation... Or, you know, kept a diary.

I imagine Christ might have bothered with keeping a written diary if it weren't for that whole. Having only three years of ministry before His violent death thing.

Not many of the Old Testament Heroes were killed so early in life.

Admittedly, one does raise the question of why Christ, knowing His mission and it's inevitable outcome didn't make a greater effort to be recorded then and there. We don't really have any proof that He didn't though. It could very well explain the Q source if Christ had an immediate written record that was never widely copied. Perhaps because of the nature of the Early Church both as persecuted (being in danger by holding the record) and dispersed (lacking the resources to reproduce the record) led mainly by living witnesses and disciples of Christ (who would not need the record to testify to them) and was afterwards forgotten when the words of the Apostles were taken down (perhaps again because the bulk of the record was contained entirely within the completed Gospels.)

I would think it would have been even more imperitive then. And even the Son of God would have had time to think about things and write thoughts about his message before he went out and preached it.

Which again, raises the question, if God/Jesus were really smart, they would have seen this coming and made it so those writings couldn't have been lost, forgotten, or "interpreted". But they didn't. Why didn't they?

The Merchant Republics wrote:

Menassa wrote:Hmm unlikly only 'very important' stories make it in to the Talmud..... like what happened when Titus breached the temple..... and other fun things.

Seems like a very specific instance for Jesus.

If for no other reason then the fact that he was, if not the only claimed "prophet" of the time, he was certainly one of the more notable.

You could say... they just thought that Jesus was a magician from Egypt.

Or they thought they thought he was a bad egg.

Seperates wrote:

Menassa wrote:Yeah but there are a group of religious Jews who seek to uproot the missionaries from their midst. That's essentially were the clash is..... Jesus Christ..... and the murder of millions of innocents in his name.

Hooray for peace and love and all that bullshit.

I mean really... if Jesus was really a great man, you'd think he'd be more precise in his directions, rather than leaving it up to interpretation... Or, you know, kept a diary.

What would you expect from someone who pretty much stole his entire moral philosophy from previous religions and philosophies? Moreover, they're bland and have little depth. The only thing that makes them remotely unique is the combination of them with the God they adhere to.

The Merchant Republics wrote:

Menassa wrote:Hmm unlikly only 'very important' stories make it in to the Talmud..... like what happened when Titus breached the temple..... and other fun things.

Seems like a very specific instance for Jesus.

If for no other reason then the fact that he was, if not the only claimed "prophet" of the time, he was certainly one of the more notable.

But you'd think it would have been noted in the Bible if Joseph was ex-communicated, wouldn't you? That's a fairly important historical piece to leave out.

Mavorpen wrote:

Seperates wrote:Hooray for peace and love and all that bullshit.

I mean really... if Jesus was really a great man, you'd think he'd be more precise in his directions, rather than leaving it up to interpretation... Or, you know, kept a diary.

What would you expect from someone who pretty much stole his entire moral philosophy from previous religions and philosophies? Moreover, they're bland and have little depth. The only thing that makes them remotely unique is the combination of them with the God they adhere to.

Shhh... one thing at a time Mav.

Seperates wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:
What would you expect from someone who pretty much stole his entire moral philosophy from previous religions and philosophies? Moreover, they're bland and have little depth. The only thing that makes them remotely unique is the combination of them with the God they adhere to.

Shhh... one thing at a time Mav.

I don't know the meaning of taking it slow dammit!

Mavorpen wrote:

Seperates wrote:Shhh... one thing at a time Mav.

I don't know the meaning of taking it slow dammit!

Teaching and de-conversion is like making love to a woman... it is best to take it slow... tease them into asking for it... then giving them what you both now want.

Without all those bodily fluids and whatnot...

Seperates wrote:

Mavorpen wrote:
I don't know the meaning of taking it slow dammit!

Teaching and de-conversion is like making love to a woman... it is best to take it slow... tease them into asking for it... then giving them what you both now want.

Without all those bodily fluids and whatnot...

Making love is a myth.