Growing up in an irreligious household.

[Bereta_Eder]

who's mel tillis?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
Are you a recent convert or what ?

No - you mean first time building a succah? Certain recent real estate changes made that possible.

[Bereta_Eder]

but cruddy, since when does religion equates moral intelligence?

[SlowwHand]

A singer who stutters when he talks.

[Bereta_Eder]

and i thought he was an anthropocentrist too

[Ben Kenobi]

I said that they could also have wanted to stone him because he was a troublemaker who was stirring up anti-Pharisee sentiment.

Fair enough. Boris, it's not that I don't get what you are saying, I'm not sure where you are coming from, so I have to close off some avenues first. This is a very good point, since Jesus did call the Pharisees 'white sepulchres'.

However, we are privileged to have the account of Jesus' trial. What charges do they lay against Jesus?

John 19:7

"The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God."

Again, and the passage I alluded to earlier,

John 8:58-59

"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

It seems clear to me from these passages that the crime that merited stoning was blasphemy, and not mere criticism of the Pharisees.

Before I rebut Boris further...

JohnT: Are we mangling your thread?

[JohnT]

The only thread of mine in 4+ years to go over 150 posts? Not at all, my friend.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
However, we are privileged to have the account of Jesus' trial. What charges do they lay against Jesus?

Is this a transcript from the trial? Was it written by a witness to the events? What historical substantiation is there for this trial? What do really know about what the Pharisees wanted to stone Jesus for, if they indeed even wanted to stone him, if indeed he was ever there?

Since we're talking about the wholesale rejection of Jesus's claims to divinity, citing a Biblical passage wherein he makes claims to divinity is rather circular. The whole reason the objection is raised to his divinity is the belief that later adherents to Christianity invented and falsified the claims to give credence to their belief. This also must be examined in the light of how much weight we give to Paul's veracity.

[Straybow]

JohnT, you know what they say:

Thread length is just an attempt to compensate for lack of a sports car.

[st_swithin]

Time to buy a blue Jaguar, huh?

[Alexander's Horse]

I thought I made another silly comment on this thread but I was mistaken.

[JohnT]

Even your jokes are full of wisdom, AH.

[Ben Kenobi]

citing a Biblical passage wherein he makes claims to divinity is rather circular.

I believe I asked this question in my last post...

Why should we accept the moral teachings in the bible as authoritative and not the rest?

I'm not going to rebut anything else unless you answer this question first.

[Ted Striker]

Re: About 7.0 on the preachy scale…

Originally posted by Straybow
* Straybow realizes he didn't post a response 'cos Settler2 was down

Originally posted by JohnT
"The central mystery of Christianity isn't some avataristic manifestation supplied as a humanistic example or social tool. "

So what is the central mystery?

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
It's still going

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Actually, if this EXACT THING was taught as a core priniciple of Christianity, it would be a much cooler religion.

Yes, it is "still going," and that is what it taught in many churches. And it is way cool!

The Incarnation is practical—as a whole person the Son became a human being. This was not to provide an example of what a human could be, as though by some effort you or I could follow and become what He is.

Towards man, He delivered a message: that He was doing God's will in making a way for us where we fall short. Everything else was directed towards God: taking on Himself sin, dying on the cross, destroying the power of sin and hell, raising from the dead to fulness of divine glory.

We cannot take on sin, we sin and it destroys us. We cannot take on death, again it destroys us. We cannot overcome these things and graduate into divinity, as Eastern mysticism proclaims. We can petition to be identified with Christ, what Jesus called being born of the spirit.

It doesn't happen by doing good deeds. It doesn't happen by attending a rite. It doesn't happen by agreeing with doctrine. It doesn't rub off from Dr. Graham or The Pope. It happens by communicating with God, being wooed by Him, and accepting Him. Marriage is a powerful parallel to this aspect of the relationship (see Ephesians 5:25ff for a little more on that).

That is the central mystery of Christianity. God in Christ came to take you to himself.

bah that's not the mystery

if it was a mystery you wouldn't be able to explain it

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
LOTM:
Are you a recent convert or what ?

or is it my enthusiasm for Judaism as a way of life? Well that owes something to this thread Few things inspire me with an appreciation for Judaism like an atheist/christian debate like this - an extended, generally joyless, expolaration of brainwashing, bitterness, resurrection, etc. Makes me appreciate a religion, which, while certainly intellectual enough, is very much a religion of the whole person, not just the mind. All this discussion of not giving a child a "religious education" so she can make up her own MIND later - reminds me of my own religious education, long ago in Brooklyn, in a Progressive Synagogue in an Orthodox neighborhood. I dont remember brainwashing or sophisticated arguments - i remember the singing, the light streaming through the windows, the taste of hamentaschen, the aroma of challah, the pride I had when i chanted the torah blessings in a loud clear voice in front of the whole congregation. I cant imagine putting that off to adulthood. The entire discussion seems based on an assumption that religion lives in the frontal cortex of the brain, that this is a question of faith versus reason - as the West has debated for the last 300 years or so - not a question of BEING - before we think, we ARE. We seem to ignore what philosophy has struggled with since Hegel - the relationship of THOUGHT and BEING.

You see Spif, my Judaism is very much influenced by the thought of Buber and Rosenzweig - whose thought, In the existentialist tradition, goes beyond thought, and examines the preconditions of thought.