The Divinity of Jesus: The Catholic Argument

[tzor]

I've never understood why the more conservative Christians I've met haven't kept kosher.

According to the basic argument (why did they have to put the CAPS LOCK KEY next to the letter "A") Christ is the fufillment of the law, therefore it is not necessary to enter into the law in order to be saved through Him. The whole matter is one of the few theological debates ones sees in the Book of the Actsof the Apostles.

[tzor]

P.S. You do know that the Kosher laws aren't Scriptural.

[Juton]

P.S. You do know that the Kosher laws aren't Scriptural.

I was born and raised Athiest, so I don't really know what 'Scriptural' means. I know that some Kosher rules are in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, along with the chest nut of not wearing clothing of two different fabrics and gay sex is bad. Most of the rules in Leviticus gets a pass in the modern world, but not all and I don't understand the criteria used to decide whether a rule is still relevant or not.

For instance, is the modern world it's fairly easy to keep Kosher if you wanted to (depending on location). If someone wanted to impress their G-D it's something they could do. Since I've never really heard of anyone doing it outside of a stunt I conclude that for some reason parts of the old testament are non-applicable today. As an outsider I can't wrap my head around which parts counts and which don't because all of the bible is supposed to be 100% word of G-D.

[Crissa]

Jesus is quoted as saying that he fulfilled a requirement so the old laws were no longer required for Jews and Christians. Hence, it's supposed to be either all or none.

Of course, Christians pick and choose to oppress while orthodox Jews argue about what the rules mean, not believing Jesus's claim. (Why would they? It'd be no different than Frank making the claim, honestly.)

-Crissa

[tzor]

I was born and raised Athiest, so I don't really know what 'Scriptural' means. I know that some Kosher rules are in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, along with the chest nut of not wearing clothing of two different fabrics and gay sex is bad.

Scriptural is what is written in the scripture, in this case what is written in the “Law” itself; from the book of the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. Consider then the “Scripture” which is found in Exodus 23:19 and Deut.14:21, the basis for the notion of the separation of meat and dairy in all Kosher kitchens.

The choicest first fruits of your soil you shall bring to the house of the LORD, your God. "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk.

"You must not eat any animal that has died of itself, for you are a people sacred to the LORD, your God. But you may give it to an alien who belongs to your community, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner. "You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk.

(Footnote in New American Bible “Boil a kid in its mother's milk: this was part of a Canaanite ritual; hence it is forbidden here as a pagan ceremony.”)

The evolution of not boiling a kid in its mother’s milk to the notion that you can’t have cream in your coffee when you are eating a chicken sandwich (who doesn’t drink milk to begin with and is typically no longer considered a youth at the time it was killed) is a part of the tradition around the Law which placed layers and layers of protection around the law to ensure that the faithful would not accidentally stray and violate the law. Over the centuries these “suggested practices” became as rigid as the law itself.

[Kaelik]

While his description of what created the kosher set up today is pretty accurate, (Ask a jew why they can't use electricity on the sabbath) it still is just bypassing the question.

The question is why can Christians hate gays because levitcus commands them to, but they can eat pork, even though it commands them not to.

And the answer is: Because they did the exact same thing in the opposite way, and they hate gays.

That one little statement about fufilling the law allows them to ignore the entire old testament supposedly, and that's just as bad as the Jews not eating meat that isn't killed in a specific way because you shouldn't eat a cow that dies of itself. (Hey dumbfucks, it's just some good advice to not eat shit that might have died of disease, you can still eat it if it dies from "bullet" instead of "knife to throat.")

And then they just pull out old testament stuff because they hate gays and want an excuse.

[Jacob_Orlove]

I think that catholics say they aren't breaking the idolatry restriction because they claim to worship what the idols represent rather than the idols themselves.

I thought the idea was that they pray for a saint to intercede on their behalf with G-d, but with the understanding that G-d is still the only one who can actually make things happen. The saints have no actual powers, they're just assumed to have a direct line to G-d because they were so, well, Saintly.

Also, I thought it was Paul that put a lot of the anti-sex and anti-gay stuff back into the new testament, even after Jesus threw out Leviticus.

And technically there are still a few Jews who don't accept the Talmud (aka the Oral Law) as binding, and live according to just Scripture (the Written Law).

[Crissa]

Yes, Paul was a woman-hating bastich that threw out Jesus's mother and most devoted female follower.

-Crissa

[tzor]

The question is why can Christians hate gays because levitcus commands them to, but they can eat pork, even though it commands them not to.

I can't speak for "Christians" in general because the word covers a whole lot of people who also include people who do not know how to intgerperet scrippture accurately (Peter writes about those who twist scripture to their own damnation.) The Catholic Church, on the other hand does not use Levitcus as an argument against homosexuality.

[Kaelik]

I can't speak for "Christians" in general because the word covers a whole lot of people who also include people who do not know how to intgerperet scrippture accurately (Peter writes about those who twist scripture to their own damnation.) The Catholic Church, on the other hand does not use Levitcus as an argument against homosexuality.

I am well aware of that.

I am merely answering the question that was asked instead of attempting to defend my favorite batch of crazies from all attacks.

[tzor]

Also, I thought it was Paul that put a lot of the anti-sex and anti-gay stuff back into the new testament, even after Jesus threw out Leviticus.

Text without context is worthless. To understand Paul's comments one needs to understand Homosexuality in ancient Rome. Where homosexual acts were considered a (wink wink / nudge nudge / say no more) way of political promotion within the empire.

When Julius Caesar was ambassador to Nicomedes IV of Bithynia, he was rumoured to have had a relationship with the king and played the passive role but, though this damaged his reputation, it apparently had no legal consequences. The emperor Hadrian had a relationship with the younger Antinous, although this was also criticized but not significant enough to prevent him plunging the empire into mourning following Antinous' apparent death by drowning in 130.

Generally speaking, I think it is safe to assume that most of the people that Paul refers to are not only bi-sexual, but they are married; having affairs with people of their own and opposite genders. These people enjoyed sex the same way they enjoyed eating. Thank the gods they never discovered the internet.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I think that catholics say they aren't breaking the idolatry restriction because they claim to worship what the idols represent rather than the idols themselves.

I thought the idea was that they pray for a saint to intercede on their behalf with G-d, but with the understanding that G-d is still the only one who can actually make things happen. The saints have no actual powers, they're just assumed to have a direct line to G-d because they were so, well, Saintly.

Either the saints have magical powers to grant your prayers (it doesn't matter whether this power comes from YHWH), or they don't. If they do, they're deities by any but the most niggling definition. If they don't, then by praying to a saint you're wasting the saint's time and god's time.

Unless...
Is it doctrinal that saints are basically filters, discarding unworthy prayers and putting the worthy before GOD?

And technically there are still a few Jews who don't accept the Talmud (aka the Oral Law) as binding, and live according to just Scripture (the Written Law).

And there are historical differences in interpretation (e.g. traditional Ashkenazi vs. Shephardi). That shit gets complicated.

---

Mostly unrelated, but most of you probably know Muhammad's famous claim "La ilaha illa Allah" (لا إله إلا الله), 'there is no god but Allah'. What you may not know is he is also quoted as saying 'There is no hero but Ali and no sword except Dhū l-Fiqār' ( لا فتى إلا علي لا سيف إلا ذو الفقار). Makes me wonder...

[shadzar]

The question is why can Christians hate gays because levitcus commands them to, but they can eat pork, even though it commands them not to.

And the answer is:

Because they are Republicans, and think they make the rules for everyone, rather than letting everyone live their own lives?

Before flat out disagreeing, will you find a non-Christian(claiming) Republican?

The entire real answer to it all is that all religion is bullshit, and proven when Scientology was accepted as a religion. Many people put "worship" as a part of the concept of religion, but neglect that Buhda is not worshiped. He is aspired to be like. HE is not a god, but something all man can become.

Which brings religion down to one simple thing, a system of beliefs. These beliefs are not even bound by death rituals or practices, but just beliefs.

The only real death plays part in Buhdism is in that an enlightened mind knows about the law of conservation of energy and mas as it were, and that a soul will continue traveling form one life to the next, not that there is an end, but like conservation of the soul. No god to judge you and wiegh your soul.

So religion is thus just a system of beliefs, like democracy, capitalism, socialism, etc.

When you look at it that way you can see why Christians look down upon gays, or even other religions, because of the principle of fear which was the purpose of religion. A power of few to rule many to maintain "order" and for the "greater good".

Gays think differently than most other Christians, therefore they are bad; and Republicans like to appease Christians because they will donate money to anything even fattening Sally Struthers.

Look at the previous example about the first fruits, and you will note the other major component of most religions other than power, and definitely a major part of Christianity, and that is wealth and who has it, or who is allowed to have it.

Watch ANY Christian show on TV from Pat Roberts, to anything else, and you always hear how God needs your money.



Someone that can work for 6 days straight and take but a single day off to rest after creating...EVERYTHING...needs money?

Sounds like a Republican to me to always be asking for money and trying to tell others what is right or wrong to do with their own lives....likewise Christians.

But that is just my two-cents.

[Juton]

The question is why can Christians hate gays because levitcus commands them to, but they can eat pork, even though it commands them not to.

And the answer is:

Because they are Republicans, and think they make the rules for everyone, rather than letting everyone live their own lives?

Before flat out disagreeing, will you find a non-Christian(claiming) Republican?

Wow, great way to shit on intelligent discourse shadzar.

With a quick googling, Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA) is Jewish and a republican, there are also groups of Muslim, Atheist and Buddhist republicans.

The entire real answer to it all is that all religion is bullshit, and proven when Scientology was accepted as a religion. Many people put "worship" as a part of the concept of religion, but neglect that Buhda is not worshiped. He is aspired to be like. HE is not a god, but something all man can become.

Which brings religion down to one simple thing, a system of beliefs. These beliefs are not even bound by death rituals or practices, but just beliefs.

The only real death plays part in Buhdism is in that an enlightened mind knows about the law of conservation of energy and mas as it were, and that a soul will continue traveling form one life to the next, not that there is an end, but like conservation of the soul. No god to judge you and wiegh your soul.

So religion is thus just a system of beliefs, like democracy, capitalism, socialism, etc.

When you look at it that way you can see why Christians look down upon gays, or even other religions, because of the principle of fear which was the purpose of religion. A power of few to rule many to maintain "order" and for the "greater good".

Gays think differently than most other Christians, therefore they are bad; and Republicans like to appease Christians because they will donate money to anything even fattening Sally Struthers.

Look at the previous example about the first fruits, and you will note the other major component of most religions other than power, and definitely a major part of Christianity, and that is wealth and who has it, or who is allowed to have it.

Watch ANY Christian show on TV from Pat Roberts, to anything else, and you always hear how God needs your money.



Someone that can work for 6 days straight and take but a single day off to rest after creating...EVERYTHING...needs money?

Sounds like a Republican to me to always be asking for money and trying to tell others what is right or wrong to do with their own lives....likewise Christians.

But that is just my two-cents.

Umm wow. Democracy is a religion you say? I would define religion as the institutionalization of spirituality and a set of answers to metaphysical or otherwise unanswerable questions that often inform on morality. Democracy is a politcal system where the populace affects their own governance directly. Democracy is not a religion, describing a religion as merely a system of beliefs is so utterly simplistic I think it would be an unsatisfactory answer for even a junior high schooler. Which brings me to my next point, why the hell am I even replying to you?

[shadzar]

Umm wow. Democracy is a religion you say? I would define religion as the institutionalization of spirituality and a set of answers to metaphysical or otherwise unanswerable questions that often inform on morality.

Sadly I don't think Scientology fits any of that, but it is considered a religion.

Also you have things that do exactly as you describe that have nothing to do with religions, thus why i simplified the meaning of it to just a system of beliefs.

When you look at what is being discussed so far, you will see that is exact what religion boils down to.

Why did Jews, not become Christians since it is their Gods son? Because they chose not to belief in that path.

Why did Christians decide to ignore the Jewish teachings and instead follow the new teachings? Because it was the path they chose.

What I am just saying in regards to the Republicans comments, is simply that who offers these choices to the followers of the religions?

How many religions did people come up with on their own, and are they what would be looked at today as a real religion? Again take Scientology for an example.

The same procedure for creating a society or economy, is what ties them together with Republicans, Democrats, democracy, socialism, capitalism, and even a probably better fitting example of a culture/society/religion wrapped in one...Muslims.

So were is the line draw between them, when your definition of religion, however most probable, does not apply in the world today? Thus, how is religion that much different from socialism, democracy, or any other system of beliefs?

Muslims do fit nicely as an example as an all for one that bridges them, and if you actually look at it, Christians could NOT be capitalists.

So which system is right, one system for all, or systems that can conflict with each other...or maybe none of the above?

Such is what everyone has to decide for themselves, n'est pas?

[Crissa]

Why does God need a Starship?

-Crissa

[PhoneLobster]

How many religions did people come up with on their own

[CatharzGodfoot]

How many religions did people come up with on their own

[Jacob_Orlove]

I think that catholics say they aren't breaking the idolatry restriction because they claim to worship what the idols represent rather than the idols themselves.

I thought the idea was that they pray for a saint to intercede on their behalf with G-d, but with the understanding that G-d is still the only one who can actually make things happen. The saints have no actual powers, they're just assumed to have a direct line to G-d because they were so, well, Saintly.

Either the saints have magical powers to grant your prayers (it doesn't matter whether this power comes from YHWH), or they don't. If they do, they're deities by any but the most niggling definition. If they don't, then by praying to a saint you're wasting the saint's time and god's time.

Unless...
Is it doctrinal that saints are basically filters, discarding unworthy prayers and putting the worthy before GOD?

Okay, I did some quick research looked up saints on Wikipedia. Here's the relevant paragraph:

The veneration of saints, in Latin, cultus, or the "cult of the saints", describes a particular popular devotion to the saints. Although the term "worship" is somtimes used, it is intended in the old-sense meaning to honor or give respect (dulia). According to the Catholic church, Divine Worship is properly reserved only for God (latria) and never to the saints.[13] They can be asked to intercede or pray for those still on earth,[14] just as one can ask someone on earth to pray for them.

Footnote [14] links here, which appears be scriptural support (I'm no expert on the new testament, though).

And technically there are still a few Jews who don't accept the Talmud (aka the Oral Law) as binding, and live according to just Scripture (the Written Law).

And there are historical differences in interpretation (e.g. traditional Ashkenazi vs. Shephardi). That shit gets complicated.

It sure does! And that's just looking at the strict, observant side of things. If you expand to less observant Jews, you get an even wider range of beliefs and practices.

The old joke is that for every two Jews, you get three opinions, but that's an understatement if anything.

[Username17]

No creator could ever be worthy of divine worship by those criteria. If a father has a son greater than himself, he has succeeded as a father and is worthy of praise. But his son is still greater than he is, so he can't be worthy of divine worship. If a father has a son lesser than himself, he has failed in his duties as a father, and is not worthy of divine worship.

Demanding actual perfection from a creator god before they are worthy of "true" worship means that you can't worship anything. An ideal creation exceeds the greatness of the creator by definition. So if we were created by the best possible creator, we'd be greater than that creator. Which since YHWH can't beat iron chariots in battle, that seems pretty plausible.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

and is not worthy of divine worship.

Discounting the whole 'worship me and kill people who don't or I'll have Joshua dash your fucking infants against rocks' factor, which if backed up by a credible threat would get me on my knees and begging. And when you get down to it, what's the difference?

Or more charitably, you could also argue that the creation's process of exceeding the creator is an ongoing process rather than just being a 'poof, you're now better' thing. After all, it'd be laughable to claim that an infant or even a toddler exceeded their parent at that point in time. Or more depressingly, this might be the feature of a creator deity who was ONLY good at creating but their creations exceeded them in every other way. If a deity was the only force in the universe capable of bestowing souls but was helpless in every other way (requiring said children to exceed them, La Mulana is pretty obtuse but I think that was the plot of the game) I guess that would be worth a prayer or two.

[RobbyPants]

Jesus probably lifted the graven images restriction along with kosher restrictions and killing.

I've never understood why the more conservative Christians I've met haven't kept kosher. One explained it to me as Jesus rewriting the rules, so some are no longer applicable. But he never explained how he choose what was applicable.

It's not like Jesus said 'Blessed are the weak, BTW this ham sandwich is delicious!'. So why don't Christians keep kosher?

I don't remember the specifics, but basically Jesus (and the disciples?) were eating non-kosher and he was called on it. He responded with something to the likes of "a person is not made unclean by what goes in his mouth, but by what out of it". I don't remember if it was explicitly or implicitly stated that Jesus got rid of all/some kosher law.

As for modern day Christians, I imagine this is like about any other issue: each person has hand picked the sections of the Bible they like best and will stick with those. It's sort of like justifying killing so-and-so because it said so in Leviticus, while ignoring one of the ten commandments in the Old Testament and the parts of the New Testament where Jesus said "Seriously, guys, don't kill people".

[Username17]

Do Christians have to obey the old laws?

Who knows? Not that it matters anyway, since they don't know what the old laws, or the new laws, even are.

-Username17

[tzor]

Either the saints have magical powers to grant your prayers (it doesn't matter whether this power comes from YHWH), or they don't. If they do, they're deities by any but the most niggling definition. If they don't, then by praying to a saint you're wasting the saint's time and god's time.

First and foremost, let's get one thing out of the way; “saints” are “holy ones.” The real question is whether the community of the holy ones (the communion of saints) is confined to this earth or is linked among the community on earth and in heaven.

So let's translate and work from there, “either the holy ones have magical powers to grant your prayers ...”

So let’s start off with an example Acts 3:1-8

1. Now Peter and John were going up to the temple area for the three o'clock hour of prayer.
2. And a man crippled from birth was carried and placed at the gate of the temple called "the Beautiful Gate" every day to beg for alms from the people who entered the temple.
3. When he saw Peter and John about to go into the temple, he asked for alms.
4. But Peter looked intently at him, as did John, and said, "Look at us."
5. He paid attention to them, expecting to receive something from them.
6. Peter said, "I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, (rise and) walk."
7. Then Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up, and immediately his feet and ankles grew strong.
8. He leaped up, stood, and walked around, and went into the temple with them, walking and jumping and praising God.

All that stuff about mustard seed faith moving mountains? Yes I think you can say that.

Praying to the Saints: Catholic Answers

Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44).

Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another person’s faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth.

Also, God answers in particular the prayers of the righteous. James declares: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit" (Jas. 5:16–18). Yet those Christians in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand in God’s presence (Heb. 12:22-23), than anyone on earth, meaning their prayers would be even more efficacious.

[RobbyPants]

Frank, I think you used a QUOTE tag instead of a URL tag on the opening end of your link.