Religions > Atheism > Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 09:49:32 AM |
| Object: |
Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
After reading about Newdow's new anti-religious lawsuit plans I was
inspired (not religiously so) with this question...
Does the establishment clause actually imply a separation of church and
state or is the left yet again trying to trample the Constitution?
Answer: The "separation of church and state," as it's interpreted today, is
not only wrong, it stands the First Amendment, which was designed to
protect (and not restrict) religious liberties, on its head. The First
Amendment reads,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, how does a judge putting the 10 commandments up on his courtroom wall
equate to Congress establishing a religion? Who can believe that some kid
singing "Away in a Manger" at an elementary school concert somehow means
the Federal Government is declaring Christianity to be the state religion?
When the Founding Fathers were around, they studied the Bible in public
schools and there were even official state religions. So, how is it that
today we can try to claim that the Founding Fathers considered those things
to be unconstitutional?
Separation of church and state, as it's interpreted today has nothing to do
with what the Founding Fathers intended and it has everything to do with
liberal, anti-Christian, zealots who are twisting the Constitution in order
to suit their own agenda.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
13 Jan 2005 09:00:46 PM |
|
|
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
After reading about Newdow's new anti-religious lawsuit plans
There aren't any.
I was
inspired (not religiously so)
Why do you think that anybody believes you?
with this question...
Does the establishment clause actually imply a separation of church and
state
Yes.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
14 Jan 2005 10:18:14 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 03:00:46 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
After reading about Newdow's new anti-religious lawsuit plans
There aren't any.
I was
inspired (not religiously so)
Why do you think that anybody believes you?
with this question...
Does the establishment clause actually imply a separation of church and
state
Yes.
It does not literally say there is.
But the USSC has determined (interpreted) the constitution as such.
The "wall of separation" is a doctrine formulated by the court.
Those who insist that ONLY a "literal reading" of the constitution
(original intent(ers) are a loony segment of political offal that, for
the most part, lost power in the late 50's and 60's and have been
trying to reconstitute that power base.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
14 Jan 2005 10:34:55 AM |
|
|
wrote in
news:nvrfu0162p5u5os8f8hotnu6jb02fb7akc@4ax.com:
It does not literally say there is.
But the USSC has determined (interpreted) the constitution as such.
The "wall of separation" is a doctrine formulated by the court.
And not the Constitution.
Those who insist that ONLY a "literal reading" of the constitution
(original intent(ers) are a loony segment of political offal that, for
the most part, lost power in the late 50's and 60's and have been
trying to reconstitute that power base.
If the constitution doesn't mean what it was originally intended to mean then
the document is worthless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church andState |
14 Jan 2005 11:15:59 AM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
Archie-Leach@getit.com wrote in
news:nvrfu0162p5u5os8f8hotnu6jb02fb7akc@4ax.com:
It does not literally say there is.
But the USSC has determined (interpreted) the constitution as such.
The "wall of separation" is a doctrine formulated by the court.
And not the Constitution.
It is emergent from the Constitution.
Those who insist that ONLY a "literal reading" of the constitution
(original intent(ers) are a loony segment of political offal that, for
the most part, lost power in the late 50's and 60's and have been
trying to reconstitute that power base.
If the constitution doesn't mean what it was originally intended to mean then
the document is worthless.
It does continue to mean what it was originally intended to mean. Its
meaning has to be interpreted in light of events occurring subsequent to
its ratification.
All documents intended for the ages must be interpreted and adapted to
the current ages. Your very own religion would not have come about had
someone not reinterpreted Tanach. My views of that are irrelevant here,
but the fact is there is no progress without understanding the original
document in light of the present.
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism, from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
14 Jan 2005 11:58:02 AM |
|
|
In article <j7TFd.6665$pZ4.3169@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Gactimus wrote:
Archie-Leach@getit.com wrote in
news:nvrfu0162p5u5os8f8hotnu6jb02fb7akc@4ax.com:
It does not literally say there is.
But the USSC has determined (interpreted) the constitution as such.
The "wall of separation" is a doctrine formulated by the court.
And not the Constitution.
It is emergent from the Constitution.
Emergent from the Constitution is not the Constitution any more than the
Supreme Court is the Constitution.
Those who insist that ONLY a "literal reading" of the constitution
(original intent(ers) are a loony segment of political offal that, for
the most part, lost power in the late 50's and 60's and have been
trying to reconstitute that power base.
If the constitution doesn't mean what it was originally intended to
mean then
the document is worthless.
It does continue to mean what it was originally intended to mean.
If it doesn't mean what it says, then it wouldn't mean anything.
Its
meaning has to be interpreted in light of events occurring subsequent to
its ratification.
Tee hee hee, IOW, since it doesn't mean what it says nor say what it
means, why bother.
All documents intended for the ages must be interpreted and adapted to
the current ages.
Only according to those who want to re-write them in their own image and
for their own purposes..
Your very own religion would not have come about had
someone not reinterpreted Tanach.
There is no re-intrepretation.
My views of that are irrelevant here,
And not particularly relevant anywhere else either.
but the fact is there is no progress without understanding the original
document in light of the present.
Actually, you can not understand the present without the light of the
original document.
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism, from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
The original documents are Christian, Judiasm was invented in Babylon much
later than the origins of Christianity in the Garden of Eden.
--
May God Bless You
Michael
GROWING OLDER IS MANDATORY. GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.
We make a Living by what we get, We make a Life by what we give.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: TQOTM nom (was Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State) |
14 Jan 2005 08:58:07 PM |
|
|
(Michael) writes:
In article <j7TFd.6665$pZ4.3169@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
....
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism, from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
Nominated part:
The original documents are Christian, Judiasm was invented in Babylon much
later than the origins of Christianity in the Garden of Eden.
Seconds?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raptor514" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM nom (was Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State) |
14 Jan 2005 09:34:23 PM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:41e886bf$0$5393$a1866201@visi.com...
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) writes:
In article <j7TFd.6665$pZ4.3169@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
...
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism, from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
Nominated part:
The original documents are Christian, Judiasm was invented in Babylon
much
later than the origins of Christianity in the Garden of Eden.
Seconds?
Holy crap, that is SAD!
Consider it seconded.
Raptor514
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tock" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM nom (was Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State) |
14 Jan 2005 09:52:04 PM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:41e886bf$0$5393$a1866201@visi.com...
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) writes:
In article <j7TFd.6665$pZ4.3169@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
...
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism, from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
Nominated part:
The original documents are Christian, Judiasm was invented in Babylon much
later than the origins of Christianity in the Garden of Eden.
Seconds?
Huh . . . reminds me of the lady I met once who was certain the Bible had
been written in the 1800's . . .
-Tock
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM nom (was Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separationof Church and State) |
14 Jan 2005 10:23:02 PM |
|
|
Tock wrote:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:41e886bf$0$5393$a1866201@visi.com...
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) writes:
In article <j7TFd.6665$pZ4.3169@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
...
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism, from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
Nominated part:
The original documents are Christian, Judiasm was invented in Babylon much
later than the origins of Christianity in the Garden of Eden.
Seconds?
Huh . . . reminds me of the lady I met once who was certain the Bible had
been written in the 1800's . . .
-Tock
thats goofy, everybody knows FDR wrote the Bible as part of the WPA.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM nom (was Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separationof Church and State) |
14 Jan 2005 09:19:18 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley wrote:
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) writes:
In article <j7TFd.6665$pZ4.3169@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
...
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism, from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
Nominated part:
The original documents are Christian, Judiasm was invented in Babylon much
later than the origins of Christianity in the Garden of Eden.
Seconds?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
I'll second it. Just because we need more REALLY STUPID quotes in the
contest.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM nom (was Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State) |
15 Jan 2005 08:10:17 AM |
|
|
In article <hpemb2-27g2.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com>,
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
Brian Westley wrote:
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) writes:
In article <j7TFd.6665$pZ4.3169@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
...
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism, from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
Nominated part:
The original documents are Christian, Judiasm was invented in Babylon much
later than the origins of Christianity in the Garden of Eden.
Seconds?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
I'll second it. Just because we need more REALLY STUPID quotes in the
contest.
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM nom (was Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State) |
15 Jan 2005 12:12:28 PM |
|
|
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-7B4278.09101615012005@news1.east.earthlink.net...
In article <hpemb2-27g2.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com>,
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote:
Brian Westley wrote:
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) writes:
In article <j7TFd.6665$pZ4.3169@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
...
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism,
from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
Nominated part:
The original documents are Christian, Judiasm was invented in Babylon
much
later than the origins of Christianity in the Garden of Eden.
Seconds?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
I'll second it. Just because we need more REALLY STUPID quotes in the
contest.
Recorded.
It's a shame my computer wasn't working yesterday. I would
have second, third and fourthed this turkey.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: TQOTM nom (was Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State) |
15 Jan 2005 07:30:30 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <41e886bf$0$5393$a1866201@visi.com>, Brian Westley
lept out of the bushes shouting:
mikeburt@ix.netcom.com (Michael) writes:
In article <j7TFd.6665$pZ4.3169@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
...
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism, from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
Nominated part:
The original documents are Christian, Judiasm was invented in Babylon
much later than the origins of Christianity in the Garden of Eden.
Seconds?
Now they only need to insist it was written in *English and they'll be the
perfect Christoloon...
(I'll second but I think I'm fourth...)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church andState |
14 Jan 2005 07:00:40 PM |
|
|
Michael wrote:
In article <j7TFd.6665$pZ4.3169@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, cactus
<baldemar.malnariz@ubadlands.edu> wrote:
Gactimus wrote:
Archie-Leach@getit.com wrote in
news:nvrfu0162p5u5os8f8hotnu6jb02fb7akc@4ax.com:
It does not literally say there is.
But the USSC has determined (interpreted) the constitution as such.
The "wall of separation" is a doctrine formulated by the court.
And not the Constitution.
It is emergent from the Constitution.
Emergent from the Constitution is not the Constitution any more than the
Supreme Court is the Constitution.
Those who insist that ONLY a "literal reading" of the constitution
(original intent(ers) are a loony segment of political offal that, for
the most part, lost power in the late 50's and 60's and have been
trying to reconstitute that power base.
If the constitution doesn't mean what it was originally intended to
mean then
the document is worthless.
It does continue to mean what it was originally intended to mean.
If it doesn't mean what it says, then it wouldn't mean anything.
Its
meaning has to be interpreted in light of events occurring subsequent to
its ratification.
Tee hee hee, IOW, since it doesn't mean what it says nor say what it
means, why bother.
All documents intended for the ages must be interpreted and adapted to
the current ages.
Only according to those who want to re-write them in their own image and
for their own purposes..
Your very own religion would not have come about had
someone not reinterpreted Tanach.
There is no re-intrepretation.
My views of that are irrelevant here,
And not particularly relevant anywhere else either.
but the fact is there is no progress without understanding the original
document in light of the present.
Actually, you can not understand the present without the light of the
original document.
If you do not accept that, I suggest that you convert to Judaism, from
which the original documents of your religion arise.
The original documents are Christian, Judiasm was invented in Babylon much
later than the origins of Christianity in the Garden of Eden.
You don't believe that Judaism originated in the Garden of Eden?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
16 Jan 2005 12:16:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Michael wrote:
It is emergent from the Constitution.
Emergent from the Constitution is not the Constitution any more than the
Supreme Court is the Constitution.
Emergent from the Constitution:
religious liberty
right to a fair trial
right to privacy
I am sure others will be able to add to this list.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/gwbush/newdowgwb11405opn.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
14 Jan 2005 10:33:00 PM |
|
|
The original documents are christian? That would seem to mean that the
pentateuch is full of christian doctrine. Well that just blows my
mind! Please explain how modern christianity fails to follow a GREAT
majority of the rules laid down in the pentateuch?
In the interest of giving you an out. You seem to be saying that
christianity started in the garden of eden. That doesn't necessarily
mean that the first documents were christian. Perhaps this jewish
'invention' occurred and THEN the documents were written? If you imply
that the whole OT is christian, then a lot of christians have a LOT of
explaining to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
16 Jan 2005 02:24:45 AM |
|
|
Shocking as it may seem, all christian doctrines can be found in the
Old Testament. Most people are unaware of this. Otherwise Jesus would
not have asked the pointed questions of Nicodemus in John 3.
Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do
not understand these things?" John 3:10
The New testament is mostly a commentary on the Old Testament, or
documentation on how it was fullfilled. Paul always refers back to the
Law when explaining concepts in his epistles.
Yes a lot of Christians will have a lot of explaining to do. For an
explaination on the Law and gentiles please read Acts 15. Gentiles have
never been under the Abrahamic covenant, since it only applied to the
Jews. Nonetheless, we should follow the spirit of the Law so as to not
offend the God we love.
He prayed to the LORD and said, "Please LORD, was not this what I said
while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall
this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and
compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and
one who relents concerning calamity. Jonah 4:2
At least you are not a christian. It is never more disheartening to
have to explain to a seminary graduate that grace is an Old Testament
concept. Jesus is the God of the Old and New Testament. Otherwise you
would not find this statement:
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded
unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
You see the Old Testament is a description of salvation and Christ.
Christ is immanuel - "God with us" or the human physical manifestation
of God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church andState |
16 Jan 2005 10:23:25 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Shocking as it may seem, all christian doctrines can be found in the
Old Testament. Most people are unaware of this. Otherwise Jesus would
not have asked the pointed questions of Nicodemus in John 3.
Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel and do
not understand these things?" John 3:10
Actually, Christ was big on -breaking- the teachings of the
Old Testament.
For example, where in the OT, is it OK to work on the Sabbath ?
The New testament is mostly a commentary on the Old Testament, or
documentation on how it was fullfilled. Paul always refers back to the
Law when explaining concepts in his epistles.
He tries to, but often fails to understand what the law -meant-,
within the context of Jewish teachings, and as such, like many ministers
today, used the words to fit what -he- wanted it to mean...
Yes a lot of Christians will have a lot of explaining to do. For an
explaination on the Law and gentiles please read Acts 15. Gentiles have
never been under the Abrahamic covenant, since it only applied to the
Jews. Nonetheless, we should follow the spirit of the Law so as to not
offend the God we love.
Which one, Zeus ?
He prayed to the LORD and said, "Please LORD, was not this what I said
while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall
this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and
compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and
one who relents concerning calamity. Jonah 4:2
At least you are not a christian. It is never more disheartening to
have to explain to a seminary graduate that grace is an Old Testament
concept.
I know that many a Xian convinces himself that Jesus was mentioned
in the Old Testament, by twisting some phrase, or another, out of context.
but, a didactic break down of the phrase, in context of the culture,
and old religion, usually proves it is a fallacy... a self lie by the Xians.
The "elohim" of the "In the beginning the -gods- created the heaven and earth",
is often taught to be the "trinity", yet another self lie, to make it all fit.
Rationalization, is the medical term.
Jesus is the God of the Old and New Testament. Otherwise you
would not find this statement:
Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded
unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
You see the Old Testament is a description of salvation and Christ.
Christ is immanuel - "God with us" or the human physical manifestation
of God.
And you quote New Testament the whole way through.
Where are these enlightening OT quotes, hrmmm ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
17 Jan 2005 02:58:39 AM |
|
|
What New Testament concept do you think is not taught in the Old
testament?
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church andState |
17 Jan 2005 04:10:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
What New Testament concept do you think is not taught in the Old
testament?
Pretty much all, at least from a Jewish perspective.
If you guys want to read your theology into Tanach, we can't stop you,
but we don't have to buy your interpretations either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
18 Jan 2005 03:14:25 AM |
|
|
So what of the most important 2 things Jesus taught: love god, and love
your neighbor? Jesus really gave three commands, two of which are
pulled verbatim from the Law, and one which He specifically said was
new.
1. Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37
2. Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39
3. John 13:34
I did not have to do any twisting to get the main teachings of Christ
into the Tanach, for He quoted from it when He taught. How about a
tough one: love your enemies? I am sure you like Elisha, I really like
Elisha. (2 Kings 6:21-23,Proverbs 24:17,Proverbs 25:21) So here are two
examples of what people might think are "new" teachings. I am telling
you most of the "new" testament is really a commentary on the Tanach,
or documentation of its fullfillment. So what concepts are really new?
I am interested in your opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church andState |
18 Jan 2005 03:37:16 AM |
|
|
wrote:
So what of the most important 2 things Jesus taught: love god, and love
your neighbor? Jesus really gave three commands, two of which are
pulled verbatim from the Law, and one which He specifically said was
new.
1. Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37
2. Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39
3. John 13:34
I did not have to do any twisting to get the main teachings of Christ
into the Tanach, for He quoted from it when He taught. How about a
tough one: love your enemies? I am sure you like Elisha, I really like
Elisha. (2 Kings 6:21-23,Proverbs 24:17,Proverbs 25:21) So here are two
examples of what people might think are "new" teachings. I am telling
you most of the "new" testament is really a commentary on the Tanach,
or documentation of its fullfillment. So what concepts are really new?
I am interested in your opinion.
No, you don't have to do any "twisting" to get Jesus' teachings out of
Tanach, because he quoted it. The problem is that some people say that
because Jesus said it, Tanach must be pointing to Jesus. That, of
course, runs afoul of the "post hoc" fallacy, but it doesn't seem to
faze people.
Tanach is an acronym in Hebrew for the three parts of the Book: Torah,
Prophets (Nevi'im), and writings (Khetuvim). Only Torah provides the
Law; all 613 commandments are found in those five books. Everything
else is history, poetry and commentary, none of which determines Jewish
Law (Halacha). So Elisha can't change the Law, except by interpreting
it for his times. There are certainly thunderous ethical preachings,
but they are based on Torah.
But Torah and the Law live. It has adapted to the times. For example,
the Sanhedrins were reluctant to impose the death penalty, and it
substantially disappeared until the Middle Ages. During those times
informers would denounce individual Jews or entire communities, causing
much death and destruction. It was decided to reinstitute the death
penalty for informers, but it was generally carried out by the local
authorities at the request of the community. After the threat was over,
the death penalty disappeared, and has not been allowed since.
To summarize, I would agree that much of Jesus teaching originated in
Tanach, but the concepts he borrowed all came from Torah. So not too
much is "new" because it originates in Torah. But explanations and
legal interpretations are new as the Law continually renews itself.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
18 Jan 2005 08:25:14 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2005 01:14:25 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
So what of the most important 2 things Jesus taught: love god, and love
your neighbor? Jesus really gave three commands, two of which are
pulled verbatim from the Law, and one which He specifically said was
new.
1. Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37
2. Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39
3. John 13:34
Pretty much the Golden Rule - older even than Judaism.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church andState |
19 Jan 2005 01:17:36 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 18 Jan 2005 01:14:25 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
So what of the most important 2 things Jesus taught: love god, and love
your neighbor? Jesus really gave three commands, two of which are
pulled verbatim from the Law, and one which He specifically said was
new.
1. Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37
But the whole teaching was to Love God, -and- -Fear- God.
Case in point, the Tsunami.
2. Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39
3. John 13:34
Pretty much the Golden Rule - older even than Judaism.
You can find at least one origin to the Golden Rule,
that is from its Hebrew roots predecessors,
on something known as the "Angelic Scrits" of the
Dead Sea Scrolls...
It appears to have been of Ancient Hebrew origin, and
relates a story in reference to Cain and Abel,
when Cain kills Abel, he goes and lives
somewhere "East of Eden" called, if I remember
correctly, Nod.
Either way, apparently, Cain, who in some version kills Abel with
a rock, then is later is -killed- by 3 large rocks, when
his house caves in on him.
And, it is written that the first law of the Angelic
Scrit's was recorded, "As a man Sow, so shall he Reap"
and also lead to a mystic association with Karma to the number 3.
(Another translation might be "Angelic Tablet's", but,
I am a bit rusty on the material)
Of course, I don't think you will find that in modern
bibles.. just 2000 year old ones, from around
the Year 0.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
21 Jan 2005 12:58:11 AM |
|
|
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
Of course, I don't think you will find that in modern
bibles.. just 2000 year old ones, from around
the Year 0.
There is no year zero.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church andState |
21 Jan 2005 05:48:17 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
Of course, I don't think you will find that in modern
bibles.. just 2000 year old ones, from around
the Year 0.
There is no year zero.
Details, Details...
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
21 Jan 2005 07:14:34 PM |
|
|
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:css4fa$1fq$1@news.onecall.net...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
Of course, I don't think you will find that in modern
bibles.. just 2000 year old ones, from around
the Year 0.
There is no year zero.
Details, Details...
When you said that the Angelic Scrit's were "from around the Year 0", I
thought it was your way of saying that they never existed. Like somebody
who is born on November 31.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church andState |
22 Jan 2005 08:49:29 AM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
news:css4fa$1fq$1@news.onecall.net...
Weatherwax wrote:
"Shadow Walker" <shadow@onecall.net> wrote in message
Of course, I don't think you will find that in modern
bibles.. just 2000 year old ones, from around
the Year 0.
There is no year zero.
Details, Details...
When you said that the Angelic Scrit's were "from around the Year 0", I
thought it was your way of saying that they never existed. Like somebody
who is born on November 31.
First off, the Angelic Scrits are from about 250-200 BCE...
And that is just the when they were written down, as they too
were older that the writing. The complete collection runs from about 250 BCE,
to about 68 C.E.
About the year 0, is why I didn't say 'The year 0",
but "-about- the year 0".
Consider it the equivalent of "~" sign in math.
It means roughly, or closely, or congruent.
I think the Xian bible was written in parables,
to -expressly- leave behind the overly literal.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shadow Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church andState |
19 Jan 2005 05:58:49 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:17:36 -0500, Shadow Walker <shadow@onecall.net>
said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On 18 Jan 2005 01:14:25 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
Pretty much the Golden Rule - older even than Judaism.
You can find at least one origin to the Golden Rule,
that is from its Hebrew roots predecessors,
on something known as the "Angelic Scrits" of the
Dead Sea Scrolls...
It's MUCH older than Judaism.
Like -how- Much ?
The Angelic Scrits, or Tablets, were ancient by the time
Jacob was renamed Israel, and the "tribe of Israel" was
conceptually born.
(Assuming there is truth to that story...)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Religious Atheistic Zealotry and the Separation of Church and State |
17 Jan 2005 06:45:20 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jan 2005 00:58:39 -0800, said in alt.atheism:
What New Testament concept do you think is not taught in the Old
testament?
Anything having to do with Jesus. There's absolutely no direct
mention of Jesus anywhere in the OT. The entire concept of Jesus, as
Christianity portrays him, is anathema to Judaism. The triune god is
just another golden calf, making Christians both idol worshippers and
polytheists in the eyes of Jews.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
