Evangelion

Brighid -

I see. You don't think it's clear. Well, that's... fascinating.

Well, sure. He's told us that he first discovered it when he was 16 years old, and I get the feeling that a bit of water has passed under the bridge since then, so I reckon it's reasonable to assume that his stomach is beginning to settle at last.

Well, I don't see any Jews around here - do you?

And in the initial post, I see only a series of rhetorical questions here - not a genuine enquiry directed at any Christians who happen to be passing by.

Sure. It's a special power that was bestowed upon me during my primary schooll years. Where I come from, we call it "Basic Literacy, 101."

Hence:

See also:

I think that's quite clear, don't you? I mean, he's certainly getting his point across quite well there.

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Evangelion ]</p>

Evangelion

BH -

*snip*

Do I? I wasn't aware of that.

But thanks for letting me know.

What "theological details" did you have in mind? I don't remember presenting any.

*snip*

No, I acknowledged that this is a form of herbal abortive. That would fall into the category of "natural medicine", not "voodoo."

It triggered an effect alright (hence the previous posts from Jess and diana, with which I agreed), but there's nothing here which tells us that this effect was "magical."

Allegedly, from God.

Apparently.

What mistake?

What games?

Symbolic rites, invoking God as a witness to the ceremony. Standard fare for the Jews, particularly whilst under the Law of Moses.

Well, they obviously mixed up a batch of the stuff, and checked it out.

Apparently, it worked pretty damn' well.

brighid

Evangelion you are the one who attempted to obfuscate the question by asserting that the same questions should be posed to Jews, et al. However, Jews don’t come here and since most of us here are against PROSELYTIZING we don’t SEEK out other theists to have said discussions with. That being said that does not mean that when the opportunity presents itself that these things have not been done, or won’t be. Christians (you being amongst those) are in OUR HOUSE, and also happen to be the most vocal in the US. AND the questions was directed at CHRISTIANS – so what??? Christians read the Bible, which the OT is a part of and minus the angst the poster presented the question remains absolutely valid to the ubiquitous Christian claim that their God is omnipotent, omni benevolent, wholly good and incapable of wrong or evil. Those Christians who fit the description of Fundie and Freak (which you cannot even begin to argue do not exist and even a few come here to spar with us) to reconcile their perfect view of an all loving God, incapable of evil with that particular passage. So, if the question is asking Christians to respond why must we also ask Jews, Muslims or anyone else for that matter? Do you think if a Jew came to defend the OT God that he/she wouldn’t be met with the same questions? Or do you fail to realize the relevancy of directing Biblical questions to a theist audience in a secular environment that is almost entirely Christian? We only seem to get the occasional Muslim or Jew coming here for any reason. I have yet, even while managing a Jewish discussion board as a non-Jew act in the same manner the typical, American Christian or defend a position that their God didn’t actually DO these things. Generally the Jew does not deny the dual nature of the OT God.

Again, why must the question be posited to the Jew as well as the Christian when the Jewish interpretation of God is not one of exclusivity, or without evil? The Jew doesn’t deny that their God did these things. It’s the Christian who is uncomfortable with it. It is entirely reasonable to restrict the question to the segment of the Christian population that actually maintains a literalist belief regarding the OT, NT and the omni qualities of their Perfect Deity? It is unreasonable to direct this question at those theists Christian, Jewish or otherwise that do not maintain a position inconsistent with the literalist position.

But when seen through the eyes of someone “certain” of an atheist agenda to do whatever it is you feel the atheist agenda is, who sees nothing more then bigotry and anti-Christian polemics it is no wonder you perceive things as you do AND confirm your own self-fulfilling prophecies by engaging posters in this forum as you have. In this sense your actions are entirely predictable and may I make the same claims about your intentions as you have so factually made about others?

Pot-kettle-black?

Brighid

Evangelion

RRH -

Relevance?

well, that also sounds reasonable, yes. I'll accept it as another possibility.

Yes, "many Christians" do this. And "many Christians" do not.

Very true.

Agreed.

I'd say that Robertson and Falwell are classic examples of this particular form of religious bigotry.

brighid

It sure helps NOT to take things out of context, doesn't it.

It seems our poster was wonder why he never heard any apologetics for in both Christian and Atheist literature. Oh, the conspiracy to think that such treatment is immoral and indecent!!

Then he goes on to say:

Doesn't seem he isn't interested in a Jewish perspective either, but is also wondering why this was sent to the "garbage" category of an ATHEIST bulletin board. Again ... oh the vast conspiracy.

You seem to focus on things that support your own bigotry by taking things out of context and ASSUMING facts not actually in evidence. You do know what they say about assuming anything ... ass, you, me ... ???

His intentions seem to be contrary to what you have portrayed when a more thorough reading is given, without assumptions and without prejudice.

Brighid

Evangelion

Brighid -

*snip*

Nope. I simply wanted to introduce a little objectivity, that's all. And if the question had been a genuine enquiry in the first place (instead of another excuse to bash Christians), nobody would have accused me of attempting to derail the discussion.

Do you agree that the same question should be posed to the Jews? Most people on this thread agreed that it should. But there were others who said that there is no need to do so, because "the Jews don't evangelise."

I don't accept this excuse, and I don't think any reasonable person would. It's just silly.

*snip*

But I agree that they exist, and I've never claimed otherwise.

*snip*

Sorry, but that's a shocking oversimplification. The "duality" of the Jewish God is not expressed in some kind of moral black/white, as if Yahweh flips back and forth between good and evil (as your statement implies.) They're just not quite so hung up about certain parts of the OT.

And neither (if it comes to that), am I. As I have repeatedly demonstrated.

I've already made it clear that my comments about "the atheist agenda" refer specifically to "the atheist purpose with this thread." I won't repeat myself on this point again.

*snip*

No, that's a straw man. I have shown that I see much more than bigotry and anti-Christian polemic, as demonstrated by the fact that I have actually agreed with many of the points made on this thread. Meanwhile, I have specifically identified the bigotry and anti-Christian polemic to which I had originally referred, and I had not accused everybody of doing the same.

Now, since it is almost 5:30 AM, and I have to work today, I hope you won't mind if I get a few hours of sleep.

jess

actually, I am quite warm. Buffalo is currently 38 degrees, but thanks for asking.

on the other hand...

you have been insiting that it is the OP that was anti christian.

(to put into context... this followed: How did this little sick, perverted piece of misogyny and sympathetic magic get into the bible? Do the Bible freaks believe it works? Do they still perform the ritual? Why is it so obscure among bible critics? It seems to lay out all the absurdities of the bible in one place in plain view. I think atheists should demand that the biblical literalists to defend it at every opportunity. (Then there is the bible test for leprosy.), a quote of the OP which did not include any proof of your assertion and Christianity in particular?

do I need to keep quoting you? Or have I made my point?

in addition, no one has a problem asking a rabbi. But denying that the OT is part of Christianity is laughable. Regardless of anything else you could post.

of course, you did deny that: laughable.

diana

Evangelion,

Just as with people of all groups, you will find some of us that fit your idea of "mature" and some who do not. Just because we're infidels doesn't make us automatically mature, without religious issues (quite the opposite, as you've noticed), or completely objective. Just like people in all groups, some of us are strong in some of the categories but not in others. Like yourself, we're all at different points on the learning continuum.

A special note on objectivity: I'm not sure it's possible to be completely objective about religious matters. The general rule of thumb seems to be that the more intensely you were indoctrinated as a child, the less objective you tend to be as an atheist. Theists are fond of calling those of us where were severely brainwashed as children "fundamentalist atheists," because we end up having just as difficult of a time being objective from this side of the fence as we did from that one.

I understand how you took offense to TerryTyron's opening post, but I understood it from a different point of view. Not so much an attack as disgust and shock at what he'd just discovered.

I don't understand how you can consider the OT inspired, but interpret the passage in question as an entirely priestly thing that God doesn't sanction. Would you please elaborate?

Here's an example of what I mean:
Allegedly? But the OT is inspired, isn't it?

Then the reason many of us have for using this as an anti-Xn scripture doesn't involve you.

This would mean that he's either using some form of dependable birth control or he isn't doing his duty by his wife. Agreed?

The theories as to why they did it are irrelevant to me. What does matter is the fact that the translations that are accepted--not just the KJV, but almost every version that's come out in the past century--are still dishonest about what this really says. To offer a translation as "accurate" when it most demonstrably is not is inexcusable.

d

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: diana ]</p>

diana

FWIW, Here's a <a href="http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=4&CHAPTER=5#P5" target="_blank">Jewish take on Numbers 5</a>, with footnotes.

BTW, Evangelion, your link took me to Genesis 1, for some reason. You might want to fix it.

d

jess

thanks, diana...

hmmm speaking as a woman who under went 4 years of infertility treatments, this line makes the ordeal fairly tempting. I wonder if that was part of it. Especially since a persons worth was based on thier children so much more then than now...

thanks for your link. I posted the footnotes from E's link somewhere on this thread...