*sigh* *smile* *sigh* Note: Snipping from two messages under same ‘topic’. >"Alex Nixon" wrote: >First, I believe the part of the Bible you're thinking of is the Old >Testament, which largely becomes useless in Christian thinking after the >arrival of the New Testament. I'm also not convinced that ALL religions >calls for the harm of others. So your point, IMHO, is ignorant, prejudiced, >and slightly offensive. > > >Caliann the Elf wrote: As for the rest, there are certainly lots of >examples from the OT of a vengeful, bloodthirsty God. I suspect most people >with a Christian bent prefer to ignore the OT. >> >> >>David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >>Hard to do, since the identification of Jesus as the Messiah depends >> >>entirely on OT prophecies.A number of the specific dietary rules from >> >>the OT, Christians are specifically exempted from in the NT; but >> >>then, the presence of that exemption shows that the authors of the NT >> >>believed that OT applied. So the *rest* of the OT, the parts not >> >>specifically voided by the NT, should still apply. Besides, the OT >> >>was included when the bible was put together. Clearly those people >> >>thought it still applied. What books of the Christian NT are you people reading? David is the only one that appears to have any sense or knowledge on this issue, and you people are Christians and he’s an Atheist (shame, shame) *holding out a ruler to slap some Christian knuckles*. With many years of Sunday school and Catholic mass, having a boyfriend that is an entirely different “type” of Christian than Catholicism, and one stupid theology course to complete some general education requirements even I know that Christians generally follow the OT. In fact, if I recall correctly (it has been several years since I have been to any Christian “event” other than holidays at my family’s house and then that is not because of religion at all) in Catholic mass at least, various parts of the OT are read. However, because my opinion means little to null here, I offer the following: “The authoritative sources of Christian ethics are essentially the Ten Commandments, which Moses is said to have received from God on Mount Saini (Exodus 20.2-17; Deuteronomy 5.6-21 [OT stuff])....The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue (“Ten Words,” or “Sayings”), articulate fundamental religious and social obligations and in the Bible are explicitly the word of God...The so-called “Sermon of the Mount” (Matthew 5-7 [NT stuff]) is crucial to *the entire foundation of Christianity*. Jesus begins by telling the crowd that *he has not come to abolish the Jewish law of Moses but to fulfill it*, and warns them that anyone who breaks the commandments or teaches others to do so will be “least in the kingdom of heaven”(Matthew 5.17-20)” [“Christianity” by Rosemary Drage Hale – The Illustrated Guide to World Religions – Michael D. Coogan, general editor (consequently the more interesting, though not as concise book out of the theology course I took)]. Clearly, the OT is considered in the NT, and since (in my opinion at least), if you are going to believe some of it, you have to (or at least should) believe all of it, you cannot consider the NT without considering the OT. >Caliann the Elf wrote: I have yet to see the Scriptures of a major >religion propose violence and harm upon others, even those not of their >religion. The Bible does not do so. The Quran does not do so. The Talmud >does not do so. In fact, in all of them, you will find a LOT of teachings >that can be effectively translated as "Will you PLEASE be NICE to each >other? Thanks, this is your God." >> >>Then you've never looked at the bible, in particular. >>> >>>I’m an extremely poor biblical scholar, but even I can point out >>>that >>>the early Israelites were punished for being *too lenient* to >>>defeated >>>enemies, and that while the injunction against letting a >>>witch live >>>may be a mistranslation, that argument is about "witch", >>>not about the >>>rest of it, so *somebody* shouldn't be allowed to >>>live. >>>> >>>>"poisoner", I think, which I frankly don't have much problem with. :) As >>>>I say, the issue is with *who* should not be suffered >>>>to live. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >>>>>That's clearly an example of the bible proposing violence and >>>>>harm >>>>>upon an other; which Caliann says doesn't exist in the >>>>>bible. >>>>>Furthermore, it's not a rare exception; in fact it's >>>>>rather the >>>>>norm. Yes, you might also want to take a look at Genesis at Ch. 19 with the destruction of Sodom and Gammorah and at Ch. 22 with The Testing of Abraham. Certainly Sodom and Gommorah would be not only proposing but also condoning violence on others, and The Testing of Abraham, though may not be violent is certainly cruel. Moreover, if I recall correctly the passage ends with Abraham killing/slaughtering/sacrificing an ox or something like that, and this is violent, is it not? >David Dyer-Bennet wrote: >I've had religion thrown in my face multiple times *every single day* >for >48 years by now. My tolerance for it has been decreasing fairly > >consistently. Less time here, but I *completely* agree with you. Though, then again, I like to debate the issue. Alas, though, I am still young, my family tells me my opinions may change in time. Then again, with some of the crap I've gone through I still haven't changed and 'asked for forgiveness' so, they may not yet. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail