... malevolent bully.

[Bruce Burleson]

Bruce, you also seem to have overlooked this post on a previous page:

If the new testament is regarded as a reliable historical source regarding the life and attitudes of Jesus, you'll have quite a problem explaining his stance on the old testament. According to Matthew 5:17 he fully supported the god of the old: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

But, I suppose, as with all so called holy texts you can - it could in fact be argued that you must - pick the bits that suit your taste and ignore the ones that don't.

People quote this one to me frequently. Read the whole passage. Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets. The law does not pass away until all is fulfilled. If, as I think, Jesus succeeded in his mission, he fulfilled the law. Therefore, the law has passed away, since it has been fulfilled. It no longer applies to the Christian. In fact, for Gentile Christians, it never applied, because the Torah was part of the covenant between God and Israel (in their view). Jesus instituted a new covenant, so the old one no longer applies.

[Hermit]

Bruce, you also seem to have overlooked this post on a previous page:

If the new testament is regarded as a reliable historical source regarding the life and attitudes of Jesus, you'll have quite a problem explaining his stance on the old testament. According to Matthew 5:17 he fully supported the god of the old: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

But, I suppose, as with all so called holy texts you can - it could in fact be argued that you must - pick the bits that suit your taste and ignore the ones that don't.

People quote this one to me frequently. Read the whole passage. Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets. The law does not pass away until all is fulfilled. If, as I think, Jesus succeeded in his mission, he fulfilled the law. Therefore, the law has passed away, since it has been fulfilled. It no longer applies to the Christian. In fact, for Gentile Christians, it never applied, because the Torah was part of the covenant between God and Israel (in their view). Jesus instituted a new covenant, so the old one no longer applies.

Yes, i did read on.

• 18 “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
  20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

Your take on it strikes me as the most ingenious recasting of what a particular bible section actually means. It surpasses even the recasting of what hell actually is said to be like (being cast into a furnace of fire and there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. [Matthew 13:42]) to "merely" the "eternal separation from god".

[FBM]

According to the Old Testament’s Book of Kings, a pair of children taunted Elisha for his “bald head.” Corporal punishment being what it was in those days, Elisha called on God to take revenge on his behalf. The Lard summoned forth “two she bears” who came roaring out of the forest “and tare forty and two children of them.”

One bald mocking. Forty-two under-age maulings. That sounds fair.

[Feck]

According to the Old Testament’s Book of Kings, a pair of children taunted Elisha for his “bald head.” Corporal punishment being what it was in those days, Elisha called on God to take revenge on his behalf. The Lard summoned forth “two she bears” who came roaring out of the forest “and tare forty and two children of them.”

One bald mocking. Forty-two under-age maulings. That sounds fair.

(It's the only bit the book that makes any sense ....Now where are my bears !)

Bruce you seem like like a nice person but this stubborn clinging to the last few straws of what frankly even you must see as almost untenable Faith is unworthy of an intelligent person . I urge you stop fooling yourself and accept what deep down you know is true.
Just let it go Bruce carry on your life based on your own ethics not an old distorted morality .

[Tigger]

...Sometimes it bubbles up and I begin speaking in tongues...

Back the fuck up a bit here. If that happened to me I'd be seeking a doctor's advice.

I can't remember which fragment of stuff I plucked this from so forgive me. It's not a quote mine, because a quote mine is a device used to quote someone out of context; you could put the above anywhere and it would still be as ludicrous were it based on religion; however, there is a school of thought opining that some religious experiences are due in part to temporal lobe epilepsy. See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe_epilepsy

Look at the bit that says • Simple Partial Seizures (SPS) involve small areas of the temporal lobe such as the amygdala or the hippocampus. The term "simple" means that consciousness is not altered. In temporal lobe epilepsy SPS usually only cause sensations. These sensations may be mnestic such as déjà vu (a feeling of familiarity), jamais vu (a feeling of unfamiliarity), a specific single or set of memories, or amnesia. The sensations may be auditory such as a sound or tune, gustatory such as a taste, or olfactory such as a smell that is not physically present. Sensations can also be visual, involve feelings on the skin or in the internal organs. The latter feelings may seem to move over the body. Psychic sensations can occur such as an out-of-body feeling. Dysphoric or euphoric feelings, fear, anger, and other sensations can also occur during SPS. Often, it is hard for persons with SPS of TLE to describe the feeling. SPS are often called "auras" by lay persons who mistake them for a warning sign of a subsequent seizure. In fact, they are indeed seizures. Persons experiencing only SPS may not recognize what they are or seek medical advice about them. SPS may or may not progress to the seizure types listed below.
• Complex Partial Seizures (CPS) by definition are seizures which impair consciousness to some extent. This is to say that they alter the person's ability to interact his or her environment. They usually begin with an SPS, but then the seizure spreads to a larger portion of the temporal lobe resulting in impaired consciousness. Signs may include motionless staring, automatic movements of the hands or mouth, altered ability to respond to others, unusual speech, or unusual behaviors.

My wife has the occasional seizure and makes some weird frigging noises during them. I don’t regard it as talking in tongues. It’s a physical condition that causes involuntary vocalisations. That’s it, Bruce. That’s all it is. Of course you’d rather attribute this unusual phenomenon to God rather than the fallibility of your body. I bet you never consider looking into this.

[FBM]

Speaking in tongues response guide. First, ask this question: 'Is said person a member of your religion?'

A. Yes.
Resonse: Praise him/her for the strength of his/her faith.

B. No.
Response: Burn the demon-possessed infidel.

[rachelbean]

I remember the first time I spoke in tongues. On the way home from that camp I couldn't wait to tell my mom I was part of it. Blech. I feel nauseous now, but I can do it on command if you asked me to.

[Tigger]

I remember the first time I spoke in tongues. On the way home from that camp I couldn't wait to tell my mom I was part of it. Blech. I feel nauseous now, but I can do it on command if you asked me to.

[rachelbean]

I remember the first time I spoke in tongues. On the way home from that camp I couldn't wait to tell my mom I was part of it. Blech. I feel nauseous now, but I can do it on command if you asked me to.

It's true

[Tigger]

Hey, Bruce, this is interesting: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z0jdIQPQJh

Last year American scientists claimed to have found a "god spot" - a region of the brain that controls religious belief.

[tattuchu]

Bruce, you also seem to have overlooked this post on a previous page:

If the new testament is regarded as a reliable historical source regarding the life and attitudes of Jesus, you'll have quite a problem explaining his stance on the old testament. According to Matthew 5:17 he fully supported the god of the old: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill."

But, I suppose, as with all so called holy texts you can - it could in fact be argued that you must - pick the bits that suit your taste and ignore the ones that don't.

People quote this one to me frequently. Read the whole passage. Jesus came to fulfill the law and the prophets. The law does not pass away until all is fulfilled. If, as I think, Jesus succeeded in his mission, he fulfilled the law. Therefore, the law has passed away, since it has been fulfilled. It no longer applies to the Christian. In fact, for Gentile Christians, it never applied, because the Torah was part of the covenant between God and Israel (in their view). Jesus instituted a new covenant, so the old one no longer applies.

And I've heard this response before. It seems to be a favorite ready-made reply. Only it sounded like gibberish to me the first time I heard it, and it still sounds like gibberish to me now. Jesus fulfilled the law so we don't have to. First, why did your god make all sorts of retarded laws that no one could possibly obey? And what does that even mean, that Jesus "fulfilled" the law? That he followed to the letter every bizarre law laid forth in the Old Testament? Fucksake, let's hope not, because there's some crazy shit in there. Also, if a person fulfills a law, the law then passes away? What kind of rubbish is that? That doesn't even make sense. It sounds to me like you're bending over backwards to make sense of the non-sensical.

[dj357]

(snip)...bending over backwards to make sense of the non-sensical.

common practise of faith heads

[tytalus]

It is interesting to see the 'law was fulfilled, so it went away' defense, as if all of xianity accepted this to be true. Of course, if it were generally accepted, we wouldn't have bible-bashers invoking rules from Leviticus in order to harass homosexuals, blissfully ignorant of the blasphemous nature of their cotton-poly blend outfits.

As for the speaking in tongues bit, I don't think the only alternative is a brain disorder. It would be fascinating to be able to see how that phenomenon reappeared in some churches and came to be accepted, but nowadays it seems simple enough to witness it, be indoctrinated about it, and eventually to display similar behavior. They've been trained.

[tattuchu]

Speaking in tongues seems easily enough explained to me. It can be purposeful deceit (people doing it for manipulative reasons, knowing full well it's bullshit), it can be a willful abandonment of reason (people going along with it, even though they kinda know at some level that it's bullshit), or it can be simply allowing oneself to be overcome with emotion and getting caught up in the spirit of things (spirit, as opposed to Spirit), and fooling oneself into believing something more is going on than is actually going on.

[Tigger]

Sorry I flagged up speaking in tongues. The practice of talking absolute, incomprehensible crap doesn't have any place whatsoever in rational discourse. I can make weird noises but I don't claim it means anything.