Obtenebrator
Verified User
Look, you and I both know you get off a little on the idea. We just do. You don't have to admit it publicly (I wouldn't) but we both know
Sin
- Thread starter domer76
- Start date
Look, you and I both know you get off a little on the idea. We just do. You don't have to admit it publicly (I wouldn't) but we both know
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
you and I both know that you make up stupid shit that you can't back up......its consistent with your mindless support of the left.........Look, you and I both know you get off a little on the idea. We just do. You don't have to admit it publicly (I wouldn't) but we both know
Morality is a concept invented by man. Just like his gods. Both subjective in time and place.
I keep fucking telling you this but you're dumb as fuck.
Amazing people believe there would be no ethics without religion.
It’s impossible for a rational person to wrap their head around that.
I cannot imagine that any reasonably intelligent person, religious or not, can believe our laws of behavior are supernatural in origin.
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
How did the ancient Greeks manage to live without Jesus telling them what to do?!
ZenMode
Well-known member
It seems pretty obvious that, if the Bible were rewritten today, it would contain a lot better and more useful ideas, including what is sin. Does anyone really believe that branding your hair, eating shell fish and tattoos are the things we should be worrying about?
Who knows what those OT laws were meant to be about? Nobody really cares on most of them. But, the cherry picking by “Christians” to decide which ones are relevant is very hypocritical.
A significant portion of our population is gay, trans, or some other “non-normal” mix. Many have, or do, belong to or wish to belong to a particular church. Or are actual believers. The guilt heaped on them is inexcusable. The antithesis of what a Christian should be. Harmful to everyone.
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
no it isn't.
Jesus teaches us clearly that the laws are reducible to one thing.
Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Great mantra. Christians who demonize their fellow humans should take note.
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
I forgive you.
LOL
I have to have transgressed against you first, Jethro. If you are so easily offended by someone who doesn’t even know who you are, you’ve got a whole shitload of people to forgive before you even get to me.
Best if you ask for their forgiveness for being such a pompous “Christian”.
The ritual laws of Leviticus and Torah have never been practiced by Christians, nor were they ever required to, and outside of the Orthodox minority I don't even think Reform and Conservative Jews practice the ritual laws of Torah
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
where did I pomp?
I just said morality was simple because it is.
why is that so threatening to you?
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
they want to bring them back on the temple mount.
Why Bring Back the Holy Temple and the Animal Sacrifices?
By Yanki Tauber
Skeptic: You know, your Moshiach idea was beginning to look no more ominous than a touching bit of optimism for our hapless world. But then I came across something which reinforced my first impression of it.
Believer: What was your first impression?
Skeptic: That it is a relic of an archaic past, a throwback to an age in which people referred to religious ritual to define their relationship with reality.
I was reading the final chapters of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah — you know, where he writes about the era of Moshiach — when I came across the part about the Holy Temple and the sacrifices... I'm sure you know the passage that I'm referring to...
Believer: I know. But why don't you quote it for the benefit of our readers.
Skeptic: You mean our conversation is being published?! You've got to be kidding!
Believer: Why not? If you don't want your views to be known, we'll keep it anonymous.
Skeptic: No, no no... it's not that at all. I'm not ashamed of my views. Anyway, here is the passage from Maimonides' Laws of Kings, chapter 11:
"The King Moshiach will arise and restore the kingdom of David to its glory of old, to its original sovereignty. He will rebuild the Holy Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. In his times, all laws of the Torah will be reinstated as before: the sacrifices will be offered and the Sabbatical and Jubilee years instituted as commanded in the Torah..."
Believer: And you find the prospect disturbing.
Skeptic: To talk about a universal belief in G‑d is one thing. But a Holy Temple, with animal sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled on the altar and its flesh ritually consumed by white-robed priests? You want to bring all that back?
Believer: What about the ritual we call "dinner"? A yearling calf is slaughtered, its blood recycled as fertilizer, its bones ground to gelatin, its hide tooled into $600 boots, and its flesh grilled a meticulous medium-rare by a white-topped chef, borne aloft by white-shirted waiters and solemnly consumed by white-tied diners to the sound of piano music in a posh restaurant?
Skeptic: You're right — that's just as barbaric. Many times, while digging into a steak, I've thought: "What right have I to consume the flesh of another animal?" It's not as if I couldn't live without it. More than once I've resolved to stop eating meat.
Believer: Do you think that turning vegetarian would solve your moral dilemma? If man lacks the right to consume the flesh of animals, what right has he to consume any of his fellow creatures? If human life is no more worthy than animal life, who decided that it is more worthy than vegetable life? For that matter, what "right" have we to consume water or oxygen? And do you realize that by taking a stroll through a flowering meadow on a summer afternoon, you destroy thousands of seedlings and insects?
Skeptic: But an animal has feelings. It wants to live. It suffers pain.
Believer: And what if I kill it painlessly? Does that make it all right? Everyone agrees that it is wrong to kill a fellow human being, be it in the most painless and "humane" manner, even if one greatly profits from the deed. The infliction of pain and suffering is a secondary issue. The real question is: If I am no better than an animal, and even if I am "better," what justifies my taking its life in order to fill my belly?
The same could be applied to all existences: What right have I to kill a half-dozen roses in order to beautify my mantelpiece, to pull out the weeds in my garden, or to cut down trees and level a mountain in order to build a shopping mall? What right have I to destroy any fellow being for my own benefit?
Skeptic: Listen, man cannot be more "moral" than nature itself! The very nature of existence determines that the mineral world sustains the vegetable world, that they both are consumed by the animal kingdom, that animals prey on each other, that thunderstorms start fires which consume forests, that living tissue dies and decomposes and nourishes a new generation of life. No one would consider the cat "immoral" for tormenting the mouse — it does so out of mindless instinct.
Believer: So why these stirrings of vegetarianism in your soul?
Skeptic: Well, the human race is different in one very important respect. Man does not act by instinct only. We have been blessed with a discriminating intelligence — we choose how and to what extent we will exploit our fellow creatures to serve our needs. To us, it is not only a question of survival, but also of taste, convenience and pleasure. This is what makes "morality" an issue for us: how far should we go?
Believer: Indeed, how far should we go? Should we eat only vegetables? Are milk or eggs okay? How about fish? If eating meat for pleasure is morally acceptable, how about leather shoes or a fur
^^^ Proof you can plumb the depths of the internet and find any kind of obscure nonsense to support your biases and stereotypes.they want to bring them back on the temple mount.
Why Bring Back the Holy Temple and the Animal Sacrifices?
By Yanki Tauber
[The following is Part IX of The Skeptic and the Believer series. Click here to read the entire dialogue.]
Skeptic: You know, your Moshiach idea was beginning to look no more ominous than a touching bit of optimism for our hapless world. But then I came across something which reinforced my first impression of it.
Believer: What was your first impression?
Skeptic: That it is a relic of an archaic past, a throwback to an age in which people referred to religious ritual to define their relationship with reality.
I was reading the final chapters of Maimonides' Mishneh Torah — you know, where he writes about the era of Moshiach — when I came across the part about the Holy Temple and the sacrifices... I'm sure you know the passage that I'm referring to...
Believer: I know. But why don't you quote it for the benefit of our readers.
Skeptic: You mean our conversation is being published?! You've got to be kidding!
Believer: Why not? If you don't want your views to be known, we'll keep it anonymous.
Skeptic: No, no no... it's not that at all. I'm not ashamed of my views. Anyway, here is the passage from Maimonides' Laws of Kings, chapter 11:
"The King Moshiach will arise and restore the kingdom of David to its glory of old, to its original sovereignty. He will rebuild the Holy Temple and gather the dispersed of Israel. In his times, all laws of the Torah will be reinstated as before: the sacrifices will be offered and the Sabbatical and Jubilee years instituted as commanded in the Torah..."
Believer: And you find the prospect disturbing.
Skeptic: To talk about a universal belief in G‑d is one thing. But a Holy Temple, with animal sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled on the altar and its flesh ritually consumed by white-robed priests? You want to bring all that back?
Believer: What about the ritual we call "dinner"? A yearling calf is slaughtered, its blood recycled as fertilizer, its bones ground to gelatin, its hide tooled into $600 boots, and its flesh grilled a meticulous medium-rare by a white-topped chef, borne aloft by white-shirted waiters and solemnly consumed by white-tied diners to the sound of piano music in a posh restaurant?
Skeptic: You're right — that's just as barbaric. Many times, while digging into a steak, I've thought: "What right have I to consume the flesh of another animal?" It's not as if I couldn't live without it. More than once I've resolved to stop eating meat.
Believer: Do you think that turning vegetarian would solve your moral dilemma? If man lacks the right to consume the flesh of animals, what right has he to consume any of his fellow creatures? If human life is no more worthy than animal life, who decided that it is more worthy than vegetable life? For that matter, what "right" have we to consume water or oxygen? And do you realize that by taking a stroll through a flowering meadow on a summer afternoon, you destroy thousands of seedlings and insects?
Skeptic: But an animal has feelings. It wants to live. It suffers pain.
Believer: And what if I kill it painlessly? Does that make it all right? Everyone agrees that it is wrong to kill a fellow human being, be it in the most painless and "humane" manner, even if one greatly profits from the deed. The infliction of pain and suffering is a secondary issue. The real question is: If I am no better than an animal, and even if I am "better," what justifies my taking its life in order to fill my belly?
The same could be applied to all existences: What right have I to kill a half-dozen roses in order to beautify my mantelpiece, to pull out the weeds in my garden, or to cut down trees and level a mountain in order to build a shopping mall? What right have I to destroy any fellow being for my own benefit?
Skeptic: Listen, man cannot be more "moral" than nature itself! The very nature of existence determines that the mineral world sustains the vegetable world, that they both are consumed by the animal kingdom, that animals prey on each other, that thunderstorms start fires which consume forests, that living tissue dies and decomposes and nourishes a new generation of life. No one would consider the cat "immoral" for tormenting the mouse — it does so out of mindless instinct.
Believer: So why these stirrings of vegetarianism in your soul?
Skeptic: Well, the human race is different in one very important respect. Man does not act by instinct only. We have been blessed with a discriminating intelligence — we choose how and to what extent we will exploit our fellow creatures to serve our needs. To us, it is not only a question of survival, but also of taste, convenience and pleasure. This is what makes "morality" an issue for us: how far should we go?
Believer: Indeed, how far should we go? Should we eat only vegetables? Are milk or eggs okay? How about fish? If eating meat for pleasure is morally acceptable, how about leather shoes or a fur
You support an amoral, sleazebag atheist for president.
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
you don't believe in morality, how do you know?
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
chabad Is not fringe.
they typically have a chabad house on every university campus.
Last edited: