View Thread

Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
well they didn't have refrigeration
JohnH
I blew it today.

I got the obnoxious knock on the door from some people who wanted to share a quote from the bible. I stared to turn the two of them away when I remembered the question i wanted to ask. "Why aren't christians kosher, I have looked into it and I can not find anything that removes the food rules from leviticus." He then asked me what specifically I meant. "Well pork for example." I was in fact cooking sausage for breakfast. He started to say something about a lack of refrigeration and I announced that I was a confirmed atheist and closed the door.

If it had been an hour later and I had another cup of coffee in me I would have pressed the poor man on it. It is not frequent that one gets these chances and I wish I had done a better job at it.
 
Theory_Execution
There is a part later in the NT where Jesus says something about all food stuffs being viable.

Yet, it is confused when Jesus states that he has not come to change the old law.

It all falls back on the big book of multiple choice.
 
jayon
Theory_Execution wrote:
There is a part later in the NT where Jesus says something about all food stuffs being viable.

Yet, it is confused when Jesus states that he has not come to change the old law.

It all falls back on the big book of multiple choice.


I like that... Unfortunately, people don't see the "none of the above" option. I think someone goes through and erases them or something.
 
catman
It just shows the the Bible is a collection of stuff that doesn't have to be congruent. It definitely should have been edited more carefully, even for mythology.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Theory_Execution
The parts I hate have to do with the logical extrapolations the early writers faught to nip at the bud.

Ideas such as persecution. Ofcourse they were going to be ridiculed and mistreated for preaching hatred and nonsense, so passages about persecution were put in.

As a consequence of this people would obviously doubt the claims of miracles and the history presented, so they make a fool out of anyone who inquires, questions or asks for evidence, like doubting Thomas.

Sometimes you have to give them a quiet clap for managing to be so twisted and convoluted, but then you remember the instances where they shoot themselves in the foot.
 
Kallistie
*pats shoulder*
An opportunity will rise again, I'm sure. Give it some time and carry caffeine patches until then.
Edited by Kallistie on 02/01/2009 22:52
 
Bob of QF
Theory_Execution wrote:
There is a part later in the NT where Jesus says something about all food stuffs being viable.

Yet, it is confused when Jesus states that he has not come to change the old law.

It all falls back on the big book of multiple choice.


Not to nit-pick, but I think it was Paul that claimed the OT laws did not apply.

In fact, it was this issue that caused a break with his favorite butt-budy, Peter, if my memory serves.

Peter thought all christians needed to convert to Judiasim, too, complete with mutilation of the male member, etc.

Paul (not being stupid) realized this was going to hamper his convert efforts, and engineered some sort of dream.... or was it Peter who had the dream.

Damn, I forget-- I may have to re-read the NT again.... *shudder*.

Anyway, it was one of the Disciples/Paul who lifted the old laws.

Jesus himself stressed keeping them.... "I came not to break the law, but to fulfill it" or somesuch.
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
Cynic
This is why I refuse to discuss the nitty-gritty, convoluted details of the bible with Christians. Instead I insist that they first give me a reason to take any of it seriously, or start firing logical cannonballs through even the most general broadsides of it. Not only do I have zero interest in reading the bible again to gain the ability to argue it, but it's just pointless because I'll probably never run into a Christian scholar knowledgable enough and honest enough for the conversation to produce anything better than "I'm sure you're taking something out of context". Just not worth the effort when I can get equally depressing results without having to put much work into it. ;-)

Last summer I stood in front of my house with some door-to-door Christians who were asking me why I couldn't "just believe". (I had told them I didn't believe in their god for what I felt were fairly good reasons, not the least of which was the utter lack of a compelling reason do so.) I was trying to explain that it was kind of like trying to convince yourself that one and two equalled five and lines like that, they were humoring me but clearly not getting it, so we walked over to my neighbor's crab-apple tree and I challenged them to believe that it was something else, despite everything they know about the world telling them that it was in fact an apple tree.

Eventually we stopped humoring each other and they left, but I wonder if that example stuck with any of them. They had some kids-in-training down listening in down the bank from us, and at least one of them seemed to be paying real attention to the tree.
 
JohnH
It is in Paul. There is a single line that goes along the lines of "accept all of gods gifts". At least according to an internet search I did a few years ago that is what some "christian scholars" claimed. I am not going to do it again.

It does not matter of course but my memory of the line is that anything could be therefore be accepted including things like homosexuality, or a greater feeling for the earth or whatever.

As is far too apparent to thinking people anything you want is in the bible. One of the greater failings of christianity to me is the willingness to find the oppressive parts and emphasize them.
 
Cynic
Or Hell -- they should accept Hell. Smile
 
catman
I thought, like Theory_Execution, that Jesus allegedly said that he had not come to change the old laws. I don't care enough to go looking right now (although I will later just for my own edification), so I'll take Bob's and JohnH"s word that it was Paul.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
JohnH
Not sure about the jesus statement but I do remember distinctly that some line from paul was supposed to counterman the food rules in liviticus. One line and somewhat vague as I remember and that eliminates the rather extensive list of food rules. Not if I was god would it.
 
JohnH
I will now punt. I did another short internet search on why christians need not keep kosher. Apparently there is more than the reference in paul and in fact it may have been in peter.

I hate it that my name is a gospel. Paul and Peter and of course John are all christian and unfortunately family names. I even unthinkingly named one of my own children for myself and therefore gave him a christian name. The small things that one fails at.
 
Cynic
It's hard to avoid Christian names -- they all have varients. It's disgusting how many forms of Mary and John there are.
 
jayon
JohnH wrote:
I will now punt. I did another short internet search on why christians need not keep kosher. Apparently there is more than the reference in paul and in fact it may have been in peter.

I hate it that my name is a gospel. Paul and Peter and of course John are all christian and unfortunately family names. I even unthinkingly named one of my own children for myself and therefore gave him a christian name. The small things that one fails at.


I'm sorry, but that's a bunch of bullshit. When people ask which Joseph in the bible I was named for, I say "my father." I wasn't named after the bible, I was named because that was my father's name. It may be a religious name, and he might be a religious man, but he didn't name me after anyone in the bible. My brothers and sisters are the same. They were named after former (or still living) family members. As much as my parents (knowing I'm an atheist) want to say my name is religious, it's traditional. There is a difference. When someone asks which Joseph in the Bible I was named after, I tell them "my father." Nothing to do with the Bible.
 
Cynic
Plenty of people do name their children for characters in the bible, Jayon. It may be bullshit in your particular case, but it does happen and is common. My inner Devil's advocate appreciates your point that sometimes a name is just a name, however. Smile
 
Sinny
What a stupid answer you got TE. Refrigeration wasn't even thought of then. It didn't even snow enough for them to know freezing meat would keep it fresh longer.

Pigs are prime example of what is considered unclean in the bible. Deut 14:8 pigs are not suitable for humans...considered unclean animal, look at Verse 7 only clean animals like lamb are permitted.

Matt:5:18 I come to change not one jot of the law. According to the christ blood sacrifices were done away with but not the law. Pigs and other unclean animals were considered unclean because they were scavengers to clean the earth, they served a purpose just not for food. They even ate their own feces that in itself would make sense for them to say the god considered it unclean.
Maybe that's where the phrase "pig sty" came from LOL.

I think it also represented the Jew and the Gentile. What God has call cleaned, do not call unclean. So since the gentiles ate pork... well then it must be unclean because they are unclean, ungodly pagans. Hence to the Jew don't eat the unclean food it aint kosher.

To the christian today it has something to do with the christ being considered the go between the god and themselves. It's not law to not eat unclean food. I forget where it is in the book of babble but the christ, I think, made it clean in the NT. If I get the chance I'll look it up for you TE. Don't think you blew it those pests will either come back themselves to answer you or send someone else with the answer just in case you ask it again.
 
jayon
Hey, I just thought of something. I was looking over the skeptics bible and looking at the brick testament. I'm certain that someone's thought of this before, but the stories in Genesis seem to be talking about lunar year and not solar years. I mean Noah fathers a child at 500 years old. That's around 41, right? Dude dies at 950 years, which would be 79 years. Granted that's astounding, but still more realistic. Either way, the story is outrageous, but just saying. Maybe that's what they were talking about. I don't know... Did people already know this? Maybe nobody really cares. Just wondering...
Edited by jayon on 02/03/2009 22:35
 
Kallistie
Makes a hell of a lot more sense then 950 year old men wandering around.
 
catman
jayon: Ssshhh...the fundies will get hold of that idea and run with it. Don't want to give aid and comfort to the enemy, do we?:blackkitty:
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Why Didn't I Think of This? My precious! 2 01/31/2010 00:01