It was more than that. The animals ignored him, he became unsuited to the wilds right after his shag. That's why he agreed to go into Uruk in the first place. Then he went to Pret-a-Manger and became a real citizen. — fdrake

In some versions it was being fed bread and wine that initiated him. Bread and wine are two ways to store food, the great trick of the city people. If you store food you don't have to wander like an animal.

When Abraham is initiated as God's priest, it's by his being fed bread and wine. Bread and wine show up in other places as well.

No - it has nothing to do with this thread. Please open a new thread, or else I will be asking the other moderators to moderate you.

Man, you were sporting a biblical interpretation that's mainly promoted by evangelicals who believe angels appear among us as aliens. This is a serious thread?

Why? You have provided no explanation or reasons for why this should be the case. — Agustino

That you have to ask why speaks for itself.

Why not? If this was the case in all other stories between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Bible, shouldn't this be the case here too? — Agustino

Why should it be? Why have you ruled out the possibility (well, I think it's more than just a possibility, given other parables about what kind of person Jesus was) that this was a parable to illustrate that there are more important things than mindlessly obeying religious laws which came before Jesus. Did Abraham mindlessly obey and sacrifice Isaac? No. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is clearly a precaution to look inside yourself and consider your own sinful nature before judging, condemning, and punishing another for having sinned. Even a non-Christian such as myself can see the merit in that. The standard interpretation is along those lines. You're just trying to be different and to fashion the teachings of Christ to better reflect your own warped thinking. I fear that you have latched on to this nonstandard interpretation that you've found online or in your own imagination or wherever some time ago, and that there's little hope of you relinquishing it.

The good Samaritan was about helping someone in need, it wasn't about ignoring immorality. — Agustino

I didn't say anything about ignoring immorality. That's come from you, not me. And a woman about to be stoned to death is most definitely in need of help. Unless this woman is Wonder Woman or something.

Man, you were sporting a biblical interpretation that's mainly promoted by evangelicals who believe angels appear among us as aliens. This is a serious thread? — frank

How pathetic that you attempt to suggest that the interpretation is wrong, because some people who believe it also happen to believe angels appear among us as aliens :snicker: - very smart. What's the name of this logical fallacy again?

Why have you ruled out the possibility (well, I think it's more than just a possibility, given other parables about what kind of person Jesus was) that this was a parable to illustrate that there are more important things than mindlessly obeying religious laws which came before Jesus. — Sapientia

I haven't ruled out that possibility, but I prefer interpreting this parable in the light of the other ones. If we see that the other encounters with the Pharisees bear a certain structure, then we ought to choose the interpretation which bears the same structure in this case, and not another one. Again, this has to do with faithfully interpreting a text.

Did Abraham mindlessly obey and sacrifice Isaac? No. — Sapientia

Was Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac when God required it?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is clearly a precaution to look inside yourself and consider your own sinful nature before judging, condemning, and punishing another for having sinned. — Sapientia

So if one is to interpret ad literam, there would be no laws, because all laws are made by us, who are sinners, to punish other sinners. That makes no sense, it's not a sensible interpretation. Why do you reckon this interpretation makes sense? Do you think that we cannot judge others because we are also sinners? If we cannot judge others, how are we to go about living, since living requires judging others (ie, is he going to steal from me if I hire him, etc.).

How pathetic that you attempt to suggest that the interpretation is wrong, because some people who believe it also happen to believe angels appear among us as aliens :snicker: - very smart. What's the name of this logical fallacy again? — Agustino

It's the lunatic fringe interpretation, so it has no bearing on the illegalization of adultery.

It's the lunatic fringe interpretation — frank

First, it's not a fringe interpretation. You can check out multiple sources, I gave you another source completely different from the one you suggested.

Second, even if it was a fringe interpretation, that doesn't mean that it is wrong. You haven't illustrated why it is wrong. So either engage in argument or be silent please.

Saying that it is "lunatic" or "fringe" isn't an argument.

First, it's not a fringe interpretation. You can check out multiple sources, I gave you another source completely different from the one you suggested.

Second, even if it was a fringe interpretation, that doesn't mean that it is wrong. You haven't illustrated why it is wrong. So either engage in argument or be silent please.

Saying that it is "lunatic" or "fringe" isn't an argument. — Agustino

*sigh*

Since it's a fringe interpretation, it has no bearing on your plan to illegalize adultery. The vast majority of Christians embrace the traditional interpretation: that Jesus was teaching forgiveness. So it's not likely that adultery will be illegalized in any predominantly Christian countries.

What does that leave you? China? :rofl:

Since it's a fringe interpretation, it has no bearing on your plan to illegalize adultery. The vast majority of Christians embrace the traditional interpretation: that Jesus was teaching forgiveness. So it's not likely that adultery will be illegalized in any predominantly Christian countries. — frank

It's not meant to have any bearing. I haven't brought religion in as an argument to criminalize adultery. You have said that "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" as an argument against criminalizing adultery. I have explained to you that (1) you took that phrase out of context, and (2) there is no indication in the Bible that sinners cannot (or should not) judge other sinners - indeed, the whole Old Testament and the laws of Moses involved sinners judging other sinners. And even in the New Testament, when Paul was writing to other Christian communities, it involved judging other Christians, even though Paul was still a sinner. Third, I don't see why a religious command should necessarily be applicable to our social law. If we were to follow the BS you're saying ad literam and out of context, then we would have no laws. If someone steals your car, forget throwing him in jail! Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Really? I think your intelligence is better than this.

You have said that "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" as an argument against criminalizing adultery. — Agustino

In the US, that passage would be brought up to dismiss any attempt to criminalize adultery (with a light chuckle).

I get that you have a problem with the gospel's depiction of Jesus as a pacifist, apocalyptic prophet. I can't help you with that.

In the US, that passage would be brought up to dismiss any attempt to criminalize adultery (with a light chuckle).

I get that you have a problem with the gospel's depiction of Jesus as a pacifist, apocalyptic prophet. I can't help you with that. — frank

So if someone steals your car, Jesus would say "First look at your own self, and go after the guy only if you are without sin"? Is that the case, according to you?

So if someone steals your car, Jesus would say "First look at your own self, and go after the guy only if you are without sin"? Is that the case, according to you? — Agustino

One assumes he would say something like:

Matt 5:19 "But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also."

Matt 18:21 "Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times? “Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.”

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."

I could explain to you why Jesus' message doesn't include any advice for creating any sort of legal structure, but I'd have to have some evidence that you've come in out of the evangelical BS zone.

One assumes he would say something like: — frank

Within specific contexts. Again, you take the injunctions of Christ out of context, and hence you pervert them. You also have:

I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me. — Luke 19:26

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords. — Revelation 19:10-16

When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” — John 2:13-16

Here C.S. Lewis explains:

Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment -- even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. — Mere Christianity

So this interpretation of Jesus as an all forgiving hippie, etc. is utterly criminal to the message of the Gospels. God is righteous & just, and therefore hates sin.

evangelical BS zone. — frank

I am not an evangelical.

Jesus does kick ass in Revelations. And of course, the doctrine of hell is pretty punishing.

Imagine that your own child has transgressed and stolen a piece of candy. Would you douse her in gasoline and light her on fire?

The Christian God does this.

What is the point of this thread? Is it simply to inform us of the authentic way to be Christian or is it to suggest that one must adhere to Christianity as you've described it in order to be an authentic social conservative?

It just seems the simple response here is to accept that I'm neither Christian nor a social conservative in the way you define those terms. I certainly wouldn't want to be.

Wait a second... until now you were claiming that Jesus is a peace loving hippie. So which is it? You seem quite confused.

But yes, I think that for unrepentant sinners, hell is the adequate punishment, the punishment that they themselves choose.

Is it simply to inform us of the authentic way to be Christian or is it to suggest that one must adhere to Christianity as you've described it in order to be an authentic social conservative? — Hanover

The part about Christianity is a deviation from the topic of the thread to answer frank's position.

But no, you don't have to be a Christian to be a social conservative, obviously.

Wait a second... until now you were claiming that Jesus is a peace loving hippie. So which is it? You seem quite confused.
. — Agustino

I've lost interest in the discussion.

BTW, this is an awesome lecture series about the New Testament. Check it out.

The meaning of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified to serve as an eyewitness to her action. — Apologetics Press

13 At this the Pharisees said to him, 'You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not true.'

14 Jesus replied: Even though I am testifying on my own behalf, my testimony is still true, because I know where I have come from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. — The bible

It seems Jesus could perfectly testify alone since he wasn't alone.

That's of course if you believe in fairy tales.

Ah. It's Jesus time, I see. Well, I was contributing to this thread in my modest way as it seemed to address legal issues, to a certain extent. But when it comes to such issues, reference to Jesus is, I think, no more helpful than reference to Appollonius of Tyana; which is to say not helpful at all. But carry on, by all means.

Yeah, oh well, I never knew that eating McDonald's hamburgers involves a breach of contract that harms third parties, and not just yourself. Again - you should try harder, because right now you're just humiliating yourself. — Agustino

You've stated multiple times in multiple threads that polygamy and adultery harms the perpetrator. Review the thread and read the responses to your despotic opinions, the only person humiliating themselves here is you.

Nah. You've just not read me charitably enough. You're arguing about criminalising adultery, your argument is based ultimately on a contemporary Christian understanding of marriage. This is wrong, the Christian understanding of marriage fosters the commodification of women as property. This is how dowries work, expected payments and fundamentally the right of exclusivity to the woman. You said the latter yourself, the former is implicit in several of your previous posts (like making a profit on a wedding, imagine!).

What I'm doing is showing that your Christian understanding of marriage and adultery is a perversion of a far better, more primordial faith. As the Sumerian religion and the Greek view of marriage, bride prices and concubines prefigured your religious reading of Western civilisation, all I'm doing is going back a few steps to the pre-Abrahamic understanding. Of holy whores and communal wives - respected and necessary positions in a society that places women correctly. All of this flows from my faith and occult allegiance with the ancient Goddess Ishtar, and I've used an interpretation of one part of the Epic of Gilgamesh to facilitate this.

It's highly authoritative, it flows from my faith and the first principles understanding of culture and morality that I have fostered as a successful international businessman.

Btw, if anyone asks me for sources on this stuff I'll change the topic slightly through uncharitable fisking, then do that repeatedly until everyone that tries, and fails, to offer real arguments against my position falls silent. The last one standing is the winner.

Hell hath no fury like an Agustino scorned apparently, with him wanting everybody else to pay.

We need a constitutional lawyer to weigh in on whether a law against adultery would infringe on religious freedom vis a vis the worship of Mighty Aphrodite.

You're arguing about criminalising adultery, your argument is based ultimately on a contemporary Christian understanding of marriage. This is wrong, the Christian understanding of marriage fosters the commodification of women as property. This is how dowries work, expected payments and fundamentally the right of exclusivity to the woman. — fdrake

This is crap. Yes, obviously the wife does not own herself 100% - that's the purpose of marriage, that each partner owns the other to an extent. If you don't like that, then don't get married.

But this isn't the commodification of women as property, since it applies equally to the men. The woman ALSO has a fundamental right to exclusivity to her man. Have you forgotten about that? Of course you have, because you have to straw man in order to pull this off.

Of holy whores and communal wives - respected and necessary positions in a society that places women correctly. — fdrake

No, that is not the correct placement since it precludes the possibility of "becoming one flesh". The whole of history, as even Engels showed, is a move away from promiscuity towards monogamy. Read it yourself: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm

And as sexual love is by its nature exclusive – although at present this exclusiveness is fully realized only in the woman – the marriage based on sexual love is by its nature individual marriage. We have seen how right Bachofen was in regarding the advance from group marriage to individual marriage as primarily due to the women. Only the step from pairing marriage to monogamy can be put down to the credit of the men, and historically the essence of this was to make the position of the women worse and the infidelities of the men easier. If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future – then, according to all previous experience,the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.

You've stated multiple times in multiple threads that polygamy and adultery harms the perpetrator. — Maw

Sure. Did I say that I think we should punish (legally) promiscuity and polygamy? No. Adultery shouldn't be punished for harming the perpetrator, it should be punished for harming the rest of society.

No. Marriage must be allowed to be between a man and many women, if it is to be taken at all. You need only read the Old Testament to see this in its rightful Christian place. You don't even stick to your own holy text without cherrypicking, this is some BS piety you have.

It is an ancient custom, explicitly not forbade in the Bible, for a man to take more than one wife. They are his exclusive property, but the relationship is not symmetrical, as I'm sure any good Christian or bible scholar well knows. Just look at your fellow faithfuls' reaction to polyandry vs their reaction to polygyny, even in the academic scholarship on the topic. The facts are the facts.

Regardless, the Old Testament has it somewhat right, but nowhere near as right as the Sumerian acceptance of communal wives and the sanctity of concubines. As I said, and you have not addressed, with your inevitable strawmen, this is the true divine mandate. A relationship with God is a relationship with the community, and sex is part of that. It is mirrored in ancient honour systems, ancient systems of debt that index ancient economies. Why the hell is your source for an understanding of primordial family relations that predate the focus of Engels' analysis of the monogamous family by centuries Engels? This is the charlatanism you always pull, grasping at whatever straw comes to hand to vindicate your heathen baseness and ultimately your own ego - the conceit of the righteousness of the Christian.

There's no way you can grasp the true nature of divinity while mired in that Christian pit of filth.

Marriage must be allowed to be between a man and many women, if it is to be taken at all. — fdrake

That is abusive and wrong. It has happened only in cultures where one man ruled over many others from a position of undeniable strength. You see it with rich arabs, the Sultans, etc.

You need only read the Old Testament to see this in its rightful Christian place. You don't even stick to your own holy text without cherrypicking, this is some BS piety you have. — fdrake

Yes, the people in the Old Testament (and the New) are in many regards deeply flawed.

They are his exclusive property, but the relationship is not symmetrical, as I'm sure any good Christian or bible scholar well knows. — fdrake

False. What's this?

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. — 1 Corinthians 7:3-4

Why the hell is your source for an understanding of primordial family relations that predate the focus of Engels' analysis of the monogamous family by centuries Engels? — fdrake

In the work I've linked to, there are chapters that address the whole development of the family, from pre-history to today.