Mosaic Law

[steve_bank]

You are reaching. No I am atheist without reservation.

My views generally align with Naturalism and Freethought.

Naturalism, by definition anything that exists is natrual. There can be no supernatural. If I see a gost ad it exists then there is a causal link from ghost to my brain, even if I can not deduce it.

Freethught, try to avoid looking through -isms and -ologies and -osophies when looking at issues. I

Didn't you say the words of Jesus are a guide for you?

 

[Politesse]

You are reaching. No I am atheist without reservation.

My views generally align with Naturalism and Freethought.

No, Steve. You are not an agnostic. I am. You mislabeled me for the whateverenth time. Hence my comment. I was always agnostic, even as a Christian, and have never in my life described myself as a "follower" of anyone. I keep my own mind, always have and always will. I've worn several labels in my life but I am no one's slave. Thus is why you feel compelled to tell and retell lies about me, throw your little passive aggresive insults and all the rest. You do not understand me. That's fine. But you could at least be civil about it. I'm not a hypocrite, or a "two-stepper", or any of the things you keep throwing at the wall, just because I don't conform to your expectations of this or that social label.

 

[Politesse]

Naturalism, by definition anything that exists is natrual. There can be no supernatural. If I see a gost ad it exists then there is a causal link from ghost to my brain, even if I can not deduce it.

Freethught, try to avoid looking through -isms and -ologies and -osophies when looking at issues. I

By the way, I find the inherent contradiction between these two paragraphs interesting. You realize naturalism is a philosophical position right?

 

[steve_bank]

Naturalism, by definition anything that exists is natrual. There can be no supernatural. If I see a gost ad it exists then there is a causal link from ghost to my brain, even if I can not deduce it.

Freethught, try to avoid looking through -isms and -ologies and -osophies when looking at issues. I

By the way, I find the inherent contradiction between these two paragraphs interesting. You realize naturalism is a philosophical position right?

The inexperienced academic response.

When I came to find naturalism and freethought I found those ideas to match my exerience ad ways of doing things.

Naturalism amd Freethought are ways of looking at reality and problems. It is how I approached my techical work where getting thngs right week in and week out had personal professional consequence, consequences to the people I worked with, and consequences to who was paying me.

To me it is not idle academic snooty debate.

As you said about being a slave to an ideology. I said I generally align with those positions. I have no fixed ideology. It is not possible to fit life into one rigid ideology or viewpoint.

Naturalism is a view of reality. It framed a context when I applied science. Freethought kept me from falling into rigid patterns and ways of doing things.

When I read philosophy I weighed it in terms of my eperience, and how it might beneficially help me.

I'll bite, what kind of agnostc are you and what are the general aspects of your beliefs.

 

[Politesse]

As you said about being a slave to an ideology. I said I generally align with those positions. I have no fixed ideology. It is not possible to fit life into one rigid ideology or viewpoint

If you really believe that, then your many attempts to pigeonhole those you disagree with into rigid categories they never consented to are irrational and inconsistent.

 

[steve_bank]

As you said about being a slave to an ideology. I said I generally align with those positions. I have no fixed ideology. It is not possible to fit life into one rigid ideology or viewpoint

If you really believe that, then your many attempts to pigeonhole those you disagree with into rigid categories they never consented to are irrational and inconsistent.

Oky doky.

You are unable or unwilling to articulate what your beliefs are, and resort to attempts to deflect. I get it.

You are unwilling to venture into naturalism and freethought as applied phil;osphies outside of a textbook labels. I get that too. You lack the expereince to have the conversation. You wouid have to step outside your conmort zne where you don't feel in control. I get that too, happens to everybody.

Back to the OP.

On the other thread you acknowdeged Jesus was a Jew, that is obvious as he is called a rabbi in the gopels.

Given Jesus was a Jew based on the text I posted from Sermon On The Mount then it follows Jesus was calling Jews back to Mosaic and 'law of the prophets'.

 

[Politesse]

Nah, have fun. You're right, Christians are all hypocrites for not being Jews, classical studies have no need of data let alone nuance, I'm a crypto-Baptist, and academic philosophy is useless. The triumph of "free thought", well done.

 

[steve_bank]

Again an unfocused response.

I never said all Christians are hypocrites in a broad social sense, us who debate Christias on the forum and myself in particular call out Christians when they claim a moral high ground and dictate morality based on biblical interpretation. As with abortion and gay rights.

My expressed view has always been Chisrtians are no better or worse than anyone else n the west. The prblm throughput history was intereting the gospels as a mandate to spread and impose bibcal morality.

Hence the OP. Jesus was a Jew calling Jesus to the Mosaic OT laws, a brutal tribal morality.

The idea Jesus was a symbol of universal love for the world at large does not fit. It is selective reading. That is a recent what I call New Age synthesis.

There are Christian areas outside of the west where you would not want to be openly gay let alone gay married. You could be risking your life. Just being atheist as well.

 

[Politesse]

Hence the OP. Jesus was a Jew calling Jesus to the Mosaic OT laws, a brutal tribal morality

Yes, if you focus on and over-interpret one of his recorded teachings to the exclusion of his actual thesis, even in that same sermon. As conservative theologians tend to do to their detriment.

Nice dash of anti-Semitism you've got there, incidentally. Product of your own "brutal" culture I suppose. Most actual Jews do not hold to your jaundiced interpretation of their faith. You should chat with a Jewish rabbi sometime, about what Torah does and does not require of a person. Judaism as a whole is not the frightening bogeyman Christian conservatives try to paint it as. It's no more a "brutal tribal morality" than any other popular philosophical school.

 

[No Robots]

The seed of universalism and moral autonomy was planted by Moses and came to its first full fruition in Jesus. Through the teaching of Jesus, the whole of mankind will come to embrace the teaching of Moses.

 

[bilby]

The seed of universalism and moral autonomy was planted by Moses and came to its first full fruition in Jesus. Through the teaching of Jesus, the whole of mankind will come to embrace the teaching of Moses.

Horseshit. Humans are far too numerous and diverse for the whole of mankind to ever agree on anything non-trivial or non-obvious.

Hell, I doubt you could expect the whole of mankind to agree that rocks don't fall upwards. There are always a handful of nutters and idiots who will believe any old nonsense, no matter how absurd.

I even encountered someone online who thought that the whole of mankind would one day embrace the teachings of a weird guy from thousands of years ago who thought he had a direct connection with God.

Why he thought that that particular ranting nutcase was a better bet for a universal philosophical position for the world than, say, David Ike, I couldn't begin to imagine, though it probably had its roots in the bizarre human tendency to redefine anything old as necessarily wise.

 

[steve_bank]

Politesse

Calling me anti Jew just indicates you are feeling conflict over being challenged on your beliefs. The roots of ancient Jews are in wondering nomads with by today's standards a brutal morality, evidenced in Leviticus. They were no more or less brutal than other cultures.

I grew up 'hearing 'Jews killed Christ'. I know you know the history of Christianity and its virulent anti Semiticsm. Starting early in Christianity and through today.

You are doing everything but talk about the OP. To acknowledge the premise is to bring your image of Jesus into quetion?

 

[No Robots]

The seed of universalism and moral autonomy was planted by Moses and came to its first full fruition in Jesus. Through the teaching of Jesus, the whole of mankind will come to embrace the teaching of Moses.

Horseshit. Humans are far too numerous and diverse for the whole of mankind to ever agree on anything non-trivial or non-obvious.

Hell, I doubt you could expect the whole of mankind to agree that rocks don't fall upwards. There are always a handful of nutters and idiots who will believe any old nonsense, no matter how absurd.

I even encountered someone online who thought that the whole of mankind would one day embrace the teachings of a weird guy from thousands of years ago who thought he had a direct connection with God.

Why he thought that that particular ranting nutcase was a better bet for a universal philosophical position for the world than, say, David Ike, I couldn't begin to imagine, though it probably had its roots in the bizarre human tendency to redefine anything old as necessarily wise.

Most socialists disavow their organic connection to Christianity and Mosaism. This is like the fruit saying it has no connection to the tree. The fact is that socialism is the means through which the aims of Jesus and Moses will be achieved. It is the material means to a spiritual end. That this will encompass the whole of mankind is beyond doubt. The Bible continues to work its way through the thought-realm of humanity and will inevitably penetrate even the most hard-headed materialists.

 

[TomC]

Most socialists disavow their organic connection to Christianity and Mosaism.

I don't think so.

I see socialism as more a function of escaping the primitive ethics and moral codes of Mosaic Law and Christian teachings. Recognizing that while the ancients weren't always wrong, their writings are a lousy foundation for a sophisticated ethical code.

On a more personal note,
I'm a gay man. Mosaic Law prescribes that I be taken outside town and beaten to death. Lev. 20:13 is quite clear.

If you're a proponent of returning to Mosaic Law you will literally have to kill me first.
Tom

 

[No Robots]

^Where there is no universal self-regulation, external regulations are necessary for the well-being of the society. Thus we have laws against the sexual exploitation of minors, against incest, and so on. These regulations vary from time to time and place to place. The time will come when self-regulation will be universal and thus there will be no need for external regulation. Towards this end, regulations that are clearly oppressive must be the first to go. Such is the case with laws against homosexual activity. Those who oppose the emancipation of homosexuals should look to their own sexual practices: “Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye” (Mt 7:5). All this is in fulfillment of the ethics of Moses, wherein external laws are placed on the people only so long as they lack sufficient development for moral autonomy.

 

[TomC]

Towards this end, regulations that are clearly oppressive must be the first to go. Such is the case with laws against homosexual activity.

Ah.
You pick and choose the parts of Scripture that are politically expedient and handwave away the rest.
That's so so Christian of you.
Tom

 

[No Robots]

Towards this end, regulations that are clearly oppressive must be the first to go. Such is the case with laws against homosexual activity.

Ah.
You pick and choose the parts of Scripture that are politically expedient and handwave away the rest.
That's so so Christian of you.
Tom

I’m not saying that homosexuality is not against the will of God. I’m saying that we are coming to a time and place where it is not necessary or desirable for the community to impose its vision of God’s will. Rather, we are now to create conditions where each individual is encouraged and enabled to seek for himself the will of God, to love it and to obey it. Laws regarding homosexuality are an obvious place to begin. Lifting them does no undue harm to the community, and in fact is demonstrably far less harmful than many other practices that are openly permitted. Many homosexuals are manifestly sensitive and self-aware. Perhaps they are to lead the rest of us into the new realm of moral autonomy.

 

[TomC]

I'm not saying that homosexuality is not against will of God.

Lemme rephrase that without your double negative.
"I am saying that homosexuality is against will of God".
Sorry buddy.
You are doing the same thing religionists have been doing forever. Reinterpret what "God really means" to suit your own agenda.

Here's something for you to consider.
If there is a God, anything remotely like the Abrahamic god, He made me gay. Nobody else.

I sure didn't want it. Nobody in my childhood did, it was pretty idyllic in many ways. But I've known it since I was a kid. Either God made me gay or there is no God remotely like the one Christian Bible describes.
Tom

 

[bilby]

The seed of universalism and moral autonomy was planted by Moses and came to its first full fruition in Jesus. Through the teaching of Jesus, the whole of mankind will come to embrace the teaching of Moses.

Horseshit. Humans are far too numerous and diverse for the whole of mankind to ever agree on anything non-trivial or non-obvious.

Hell, I doubt you could expect the whole of mankind to agree that rocks don't fall upwards. There are always a handful of nutters and idiots who will believe any old nonsense, no matter how absurd.

I even encountered someone online who thought that the whole of mankind would one day embrace the teachings of a weird guy from thousands of years ago who thought he had a direct connection with God.

Why he thought that that particular ranting nutcase was a better bet for a universal philosophical position for the world than, say, David Ike, I couldn't begin to imagine, though it probably had its roots in the bizarre human tendency to redefine anything old as necessarily wise.

Most socialists disavow their organic connection to Christianity and Mosaism. This is like the fruit saying it has no connection to the tree. The fact is that socialism is the means through which the aims of Jesus and Moses will be achieved. It is the material means to a spiritual end. That this will encompass the whole of mankind is beyond doubt. The Bible continues to work its way through the thought-realm of humanity and will inevitably penetrate even the most hard-headed materialists.

 

[No Robots]

I'm not saying that homosexuality is not against will of God.

Lemme rephrase that without your double negative.
"I am saying that homosexuality is against will of God".
Sorry buddy.
You are doing the same thing religionists have been doing forever. Reinterpret what "God really means" to suit your own agenda.

Here's something for you to consider.
If there is a God, anything remotely like the Abrahamic god, He made me gay. Nobody else.

I sure didn't want it. Nobody in my childhood did, it was pretty idyllic in many ways. But I've known it since I was a kid. Either God made me gay or there is no God remotely like the one Christian Bible describes.
Tom

^I agree that all things are ultimately god's will. Perhaps homosexuality is a necessary protest against toxic masculinity and the horrific manipulation of women's sexuality. Perhaps the militant activism of homosexuals truly is the means toward a healthy sexuality for all of us.

I was beaten and bullied as a child for being a "fag" in the view of my post-war brush-cut neighborhood gang. This may have made me the first to distance myself from homosexuality, perhaps even the first to victimize it. Whatever the case, activism of homosexuals has helped me to overcome some of my own sexual hangups. And if standing beside the homosexuals whom I love means repudiating the Bible, then so be it. However, I do believe that deep within the Bible is the secret to universal love of mankind, and it is only our own limited understanding that leads us astray from that.