well, its said in the bible {not the "The New Testament". teh BIBLE} that "you shall not eat Capricorn on his mother milk" - dont eat meat and milk. also, ther is the rule who say that the man need to eat only animals: animals who Cud animals who have Hooves if the animal font have both, you shouldnt eat it {mean - no pigs, no horses, no hipos, no camels}
anotehr rule, a quite clear one is, that god stoped is work of creation in the seven day, and in teh 10 commands, he say, befor 'dont kill' and 'you shall have only one god-me' to:"Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify" which mean : do not work or do any job in Saturday, and keep it holy.
and ther are more rules, that seems that, and im being sarcastic, jessus said "well, we dont need them anymore".
why? and why save the others? isnt just making a new religion, with a new god who have new rules?
Actually, they are just ignored. It probably has something to do with the initial spreading of a religion, the guy who spread it ( I can't remember his name. Paul?) basically said "Look at this! We can eat pork! Yay!" to allow more people to join his religion. Bionically, it pretty much states the old laws are still in effect. In fact, it does.
Otherwise it is pretty much the same reason YOU don't follow any of the Biblical laws. Why do you not stone all the people it says to stone?
well, its said in the bible {not the "The New Testament". teh BIBLE}
As I got done stating in another thread the New Testament is included as part of the Bible. What you're thinking of is the Torah which is just the OT.
animals who Cud animals who have Hooves if the animal font have both, you shouldnt eat it {mean - no pigs, no horses, no hipos, no camels}
Let's not forget those cud chewing rabbits in the Bible. But yeah as 314d1 said this stuff gets ignored.
basically said "Look at this! We can eat pork! Yay!" to allow more people to join his religion.
Pretty much. If I remember correctly the original apologetics that basically said this was that the Israelites still had to follow these rules since that's who they were set down for but anyone brought into the religion who wasn't of such decent did not. In short it was what you stated.
As I got done stating in another thread the New Testament is included as part of the Bible. What you're thinking of is the Torah which is just the OT.
nooo. the bible includ torah-ת×ר×", nevi'im-× ×'×××× "Prophets" and ktuvim "writtens"-×ת××'××. called tanah,or, so you will get the logic, tn"k-×ª× "×.
ther is a diffrunce between the lwas that the bible suggest, between god commands. the 10 commands are preety clears and universal. let me remind you, that the the hebrews were the first to "invent" a speicel day in which to work was forrbiden, even for slaves and animals. the bible also against slavery, which is forbiten. afcours, ther are some wacky laws, but they are not the mainly ones. the mains are cosher food laws - only fish with scales, birds - none predetors, and a list of which you can {like chickens, ducks and peagons, but not ravens and eagles}. every meat most be Slaughtered, not one you "find on the street".
and one more thing that i dont understand - the holidaies things. its like all the christians holidays are about jessus, but what about god? yea yea, the USAians have tnx givin, but thats just to "open", if you understand me.
so, i =ll ask it this way - in what you belive, that jessus is powerfull like a god { you belive in more than 1 god, + all the Saints } or jessus is just a messenger?
You may have a different definition of the bible, but in christianity, the bible is the old and new testament. I can hardly read what you wrote about the torah and tanah etc., but that seems like the jewish 'bible'.
so, i =ll ask it this way - in what you belive, that jessus is powerfull like a god { you belive in more than 1 god, + all the Saints } or jessus is just a messenger?
Naw.. christians generally believe in the trinity: father (god), son (jesus) and the holy spirit (d'uh). But all three are in the same time the same entity which is why it is still considered monotheistic. It's confusing and makes no sense, so don't try to think too hard about it
About the saints, they are not seen as deities at all, they are simply saint mortals. Catholics address prayers to saints and to Mary, not because they revere them as deities, but because they use them as sort of intermediary; they beg the saints to further their prayers directly to god, hoping they'll be heard. So they're praying to god like any other christian. Common misunderstanding it seems.
nooo. the bible includ torah-Ã-ªÃ-�Ã-¨Ã-", nevi'im-Ã- Ã-'Ã-�Ã-�Ã-�Ã-� "Prophets" and ktuvim "writtens"-Ã-�Ã-ªÃ-�Ã-'Ã-�Ã-�. called tanah,or, so you will get the logic, tn"k-Ã-ªÃ- "Ã-�.
What the? Where did you copy this from?
Anyway the Bible is any of the religious text from Judaism and Christianity. Since Christianity includes the New Testament it does count as part of the Bible. Because of this we can have different combinations resulting in different versions of the Bible, some of which will leave out text that others include.
ther is a diffrunce between the lwas that the bible suggest, between god commands. the 10 commands are preety clears and universal.
And that's just one example of inaccuracy in these "Important laws".
and one more thing that i dont understand - the holidaies things. its like all the christians holidays are about jessus, but what about god? yea yea, the USAians have tnx givin, but thats just to "open", if you understand me.
USAians? The Christian holidays celebrate both Jesus and God. Though the bigger ones are actually stolen Pagan holidays. As for Thanksgiving this isn't a Christian holiday.
so, i =ll ask it this way - in what you belive, that jessus is powerfull like a god { you belive in more than 1 god, + all the Saints } or jessus is just a messenger?
HahiHa covered the Christian belief. But if you were asking what I believe personally, that would be that it's all a load of bull.
Dont be mistaken, im an atheist too, i do none of the list i gave oyu {well, i dont murder peoles or steal {ok ok, just a little}}. but ther is logic behind these laws. like - in ancient time, you didnt had books who told you what was poisoness and what didnt. so fish withoutscales maybe meant that he have nother protection divice, like poison. it also stoped the trieing to fish sharks and whalese. pigs were a very dirty animals, fed with garbage. cheese and mik as proved to be an unhealthy combination. its also a moral one - you dont cook a baby with his mother milk! its tjust wrong. so thuse rules are not wacky.
and about the links - i dont realy recognize them in english, only in hebrew so its look wierd for me. all i know is that ther was a bible, and after it ther was added the new testement, who was wroten after jessus, and after everyone know him, died. it wasnt combined, at least not my bible. if you want one, im sure you can get one, without the new testement and the edits who came to it in the years.
for summery, i may be atheist, but its dont mean i think the bible is wierd or wrong. its mostly the story of my ancectors, not what someone say or what i shoulde do. its the story of Israel, of places i know. i visited wher david killed goliath, i see wher it all happened. this is the bible for me. i might question things in it, but its also a proven history book.
just to make it clear, we belive in the same god. but we {*religios jews} belive that when the messiah will come {keep waiting i say...} everything will become better, all of our enemies will vanished {it mostly because for centuries peoples 'bullied' us, so this is the only way they coulde "revenge" them}.
so how can jessus be the messiah, if he need to come back for doing all the hocus-pocus who've been told to happen? {does i did a grammer mistake? i think i did}
and ther are more rules, that seems that, and im being sarcastic, jessus said "well, we dont need them anymore".
This is why I say that the Bible was written by man, if God is all knowing then he would tell us exactly how to live our lives and nothing would change, because the Bible has two contrasting sections (an eye for an eye is good (Old) If some one hits you, turn the other cheek(New)), surely that either means God changed his mind and is thus not all knowing or the forever changing mind of man who wrote it.
like - in ancient time, you didnt had books who told you what was poisoness and what didnt. so fish withoutscales maybe meant that he have nother protection divice, like poison. it also stoped the trieing to fish sharks and whalese.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't certain eels edible? Sharks and whales are edible too, simply dangerous to catch, which is common sense.
pigs were a very dirty animals, fed with garbage.
Pigs aren't so dirty, we simply perceive them as such. It's purely subjective. And their meat is good. I don't see what's wrong with that. Are you so vain that you would decline good meat only because the animal was held in mud pits?
cheese and mik as proved to be an unhealthy combination. its also a moral one - you dont cook a baby with his mother milk! its tjust wrong.
What exacty is wrong with cheese and milk? And I don't see the moral problem you're speaking of. Do you perceive it as a kind of sadism?
so thuse rules are not wacky.
You'll have to bring up better arguments to convince people of that
so how can jessus be the messiah, if he need to come back for doing all the hocus-pocus who've been told to happen?
He is said to have ascended to heaven, if that's true then going back to earth doesn't sound like much of a challenge.
cheese and mik as proved to be an unhealthy combination. its also a moral one - you dont cook a baby with his mother milk! its tjust wrong.
I've never eaten a cheese that required the killing of a baby.
cheese and mik as proved to be an unhealthy combination
Last time I checked, they were on the healthy food list.
This is why I say that the Bible was written by man, if God is all knowing then he would tell us exactly how to live our lives and nothing would change, because the Bible has two contrasting sections (an eye for an eye is good (Old) If some one hits you, turn the other cheek(New)), surely that either means God changed his mind and is thus not all knowing or the forever changing mind of man who wrote it.
Old Testament God is generally held to be more vicious than the New Testament God, although they are generally accepted to be the same. This I'm not sure why.
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Courtesy of Dawkins.
For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. Deuteronomy 4:24 I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. Deuteronomy 5:9
The New Testament God seems much kinder, although he can still be a prick.
In a way, many people say that Jesus was one of the first to say
I know guys, lets all be nice to each other
This isn't strictly true as people were nice to each other but he was the first (in written memory) to come up with pacifism (no violence what so ever) Can I just take the opportunity to congratulate you on your superb English danielo.
like - in ancient time, you didnt had books who told you what was poisoness and what didnt. so fish withoutscales maybe meant that he have nother protection divice, like poison. it also stoped the trieing to fish sharks and whalese.
A fish being poisonous or not is not determined by if it has scales or not. Also during that time they wouldn't have been at all concerned with animal conservation.
pigs were a very dirty animals, fed with garbage.
No they're not.
cheese and mik as proved to be an unhealthy combination. its also a moral one - you dont cook a baby with his mother milk! its tjust wrong.
No it's not unhealthy. Furthermore you're just using what you gather from the animals. How it's prepared I find no more immoral then eating the cow in the first place.
so thuse rules are not wacky.
Yes I would still call them wacky.
and about the links - i dont realy recognize them in english, only in hebrew so its look wierd for me.
Please don't expect me to have to find a translation for you each time.
I would just copy and paste the Hebrew part for you but the site won't accept such text, but you can read it in both languages on those links.
its mostly the story of my ancectors, not what someone say or what i shoulde do. its the story of Israel, of places i know. i visited wher david killed goliath, i see wher it all happened. this is the bible for me. i might question things in it, but its also a proven history book.
I wouldn't put to much stock in the validity of many of those stories. It's far from a history book.
just to make it clear, we belive in the same god. but we {*religios jews} belive that when the messiah will come {keep waiting i say...} everything will become better, all of our enemies will vanished {it mostly because for centuries peoples 'bullied' us, so this is the only way they coulde "revenge" them}.
I'm a bit confused here. You say you're an atheist but this statement seems to imply you are including your self in belief in God. This might just be something getting lost in translation. But just in case atheist is a lack of belief in any god or gods.
Yes, because we are all in the business for mocking people who do not speak/type English well because it is not their first language.
It takes time to decipher and understand his posts, which leaves a a bad impression. As they say "first impression is last" his grammar gives an impression of him being uneducated hence his own writing style is first vote against his opinion.
It takes time to decipher and understand his posts, which leaves a a bad impression. As they say "first impression is last" his grammar gives an impression of him being uneducated hence his own writing style is first vote against his opinion.
However, simply because his English skills might not necessarily be at par with those of other users does not open him up to ridicule.
