If your church's doctrine says homosexuality is a sin, but your DC is gay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

10:28 said this: “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Which, obviously, would apply to Christians as well as Jews.

Is that you too?

Yes. I posted that. Jesus preached to Jews. Christianity broadened to gentiles after his death. The dietary rules apply only to Jews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

10:28 said this: “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Which, obviously, would apply to Christians as well as Jews.

Is that you too?

Yes. I posted that. Jesus preached to Jews. Christianity broadened to gentiles after his death. The dietary rules apply only to Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, you know that, right? He was telling his fellow Jews that it doesn’t matter what goes in their mouths (you still have no good answer for that one), to drink wine as a metaphor for his blood (eating blood being an abhorrence to Jews).

Now I’m just convinced you’re arguing in bad faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

10:28 said this: “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Which, obviously, would apply to Christians as well as Jews.

Is that you too?

Yes. I posted that. Jesus preached to Jews. Christianity broadened to gentiles after his death. The dietary rules apply only to Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, you know that, right? He was telling his fellow Jews that it doesn’t matter what goes in their mouths (you still have no good answer for that one), to drink wine as a metaphor for his blood (eating blood being an abhorrence to Jews).

Now I’m just convinced you’re arguing in bad faith.

Now we’re going in circles. As I said, Jesus was referring to Leviticus chapter 15. Specifically 15:11. We’re never going to agree on this so let’s stop boring the rest of DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

10:28 said this: “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Which, obviously, would apply to Christians as well as Jews.

Is that you too?

Yes. I posted that. Jesus preached to Jews. Christianity broadened to gentiles after his death. The dietary rules apply only to Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, you know that, right? He was telling his fellow Jews that it doesn’t matter what goes in their mouths (you still have no good answer for that one), to drink wine as a metaphor for his blood (eating blood being an abhorrence to Jews).

Now I’m just convinced you’re arguing in bad faith.

Now we’re going in circles. As I said, Jesus was referring to Leviticus chapter 15. Specifically 15:11. We’re never going to agree on this so let’s stop boring the rest of DCUM.

When Jesus said “what goes into your mouth is not unclean” in Matthew, he wasn’t referring to the bodily discharges in Leviticus 15:11. You think Jesus was talking about oral sex?

But yes, if you want to keep pulling stuff out of your butt (literally) and lying about your own posts, then I’m done here. Good job representing atheists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

10:28 said this: “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Which, obviously, would apply to Christians as well as Jews.

Is that you too?

Yes. I posted that. Jesus preached to Jews. Christianity broadened to gentiles after his death. The dietary rules apply only to Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, you know that, right? He was telling his fellow Jews that it doesn’t matter what goes in their mouths (you still have no good answer for that one), to drink wine as a metaphor for his blood (eating blood being an abhorrence to Jews).

Now I’m just convinced you’re arguing in bad faith.

Now we’re going in circles. As I said, Jesus was referring to Leviticus chapter 15. Specifically 15:11. We’re never going to agree on this so let’s stop boring the rest of DCUM.

When Jesus said “what goes into your mouth is not unclean” in Matthew, he wasn’t referring to the bodily discharges in Leviticus 15:11. You think Jesus was talking about oral sex?

But yes, if you want to keep pulling stuff out of your butt (literally) and lying about your own posts, then I’m done here. Good job representing atheists.

As I said before, under 15:11, anything a man touches after having a nocturnal emission becomes unclean until he cleanses himself. At Orthodox dinners, all the Jews ritually wash their hands before the meal because otherwise, they would be defiled by the food if they had had a nocturnal emission.

[Anonymous]

Jesus was getting rid of prophylactic rules, much as the Conservative Jews do today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:seriously? You would consider picking the church over your child?

I’m not sure what you are getting at here. People’s beliefs don’t magic things into existence. If people who practice homosexuality and are unrepentant about it cannot go to Heaven, it doesn’t really matter whether or not you, I, or anyone else believes it. It is what it is.

Someone proporting to speak with certainty about who can and can't go to Heaven criticizing others for magical thinking. Hilarious.

I’m not proporting anything or criticizing anyone.
If you think that the house across the street is on fire, and you tell your kids not to run in there, you aren’t “choosing” your belief in the house being on fire over your children. Now, you might be wrong about the house being on fire, and you might be right about the house being on fire, but either way, your belief didn’t “cause” the house to be on fire. Whether or not it’s on fire has nothing to do with where you go to church.

Now, if you believe the house is on fire, and you “choose” your child by letting them run into the burning house, then that’s on you. And if you are doing it because people around you are saying that those who don’t let their children burn to death are intolerant haters, then you should be doubly shamed. You are, at the very least, a poor parent.

I think there is an assumption here though that NO ONE really sees that the house is on fire, and they are just running around saying that like some kind of emperor’s new clothes situation. If that’s the case, then of course, you should stop.
I don’t believe that’s the case though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

10:28 said this: “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Which, obviously, would apply to Christians as well as Jews.

Is that you too?

Yes. I posted that. Jesus preached to Jews. Christianity broadened to gentiles after his death. The dietary rules apply only to Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, you know that, right? He was telling his fellow Jews that it doesn’t matter what goes in their mouths (you still have no good answer for that one), to drink wine as a metaphor for his blood (eating blood being an abhorrence to Jews).

Now I’m just convinced you’re arguing in bad faith.

Now we’re going in circles. As I said, Jesus was referring to Leviticus chapter 15. Specifically 15:11. We’re never going to agree on this so let’s stop boring the rest of DCUM.

When Jesus said “what goes into your mouth is not unclean” in Matthew, he wasn’t referring to the bodily discharges in Leviticus 15:11. You think Jesus was talking about oral sex?

But yes, if you want to keep pulling stuff out of your butt (literally) and lying about your own posts, then I’m done here. Good job representing atheists.

As I said before, under 15:11, anything a man touches after having a nocturnal emission becomes unclean until he cleanses himself. At Orthodox dinners, all the Jews ritually wash their hands before the meal because otherwise, they would be defiled by the food if they had had a nocturnal emission.

That’s lovely, but it doesn’t have anything to do with Matthew 15, verse 11: “Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth is what makes him unclean.”

Unless you’re still talking about oral sex. Pat yourself on the back?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

10:28 said this: “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Which, obviously, would apply to Christians as well as Jews.

Is that you too?

Yes. I posted that. Jesus preached to Jews. Christianity broadened to gentiles after his death. The dietary rules apply only to Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, you know that, right? He was telling his fellow Jews that it doesn’t matter what goes in their mouths (you still have no good answer for that one), to drink wine as a metaphor for his blood (eating blood being an abhorrence to Jews).

Now I’m just convinced you’re arguing in bad faith.

Now we’re going in circles. As I said, Jesus was referring to Leviticus chapter 15. Specifically 15:11. We’re never going to agree on this so let’s stop boring the rest of DCUM.

When Jesus said “what goes into your mouth is not unclean” in Matthew, he wasn’t referring to the bodily discharges in Leviticus 15:11. You think Jesus was talking about oral sex?

But yes, if you want to keep pulling stuff out of your butt (literally) and lying about your own posts, then I’m done here. Good job representing atheists.

As I said before, under 15:11, anything a man touches after having a nocturnal emission becomes unclean until he cleanses himself. At Orthodox dinners, all the Jews ritually wash their hands before the meal because otherwise, they would be defiled by the food if they had had a nocturnal emission.

If Jesus actually meant that, he would had said, “what’s on your hands doesn’t make you unclean.” See the difference?

Moreover, Jesus wouldn’t have gone on to draw contrasts between what goes into your mouth and what comes out of your mouth. That contrast makes sense in the context of eating, but it makes no sense in your supposed context of nocturnal emissions and hand washing.

[Anonymous]

It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Paul is a different situation. Peter and James said the Kosher laws apply to all Christians. Paul said the Kosher laws only apply to Jewish Christians. But Paul had no divine directive on this point.

Peter’s vision is pretty clear about there being no unclean animals. Here’s Acts 10-16: “In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14 But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15 And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16 This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.”

While Peter goes on to make a metaphor about clean and unclean men (Jews and Gentiles), Peter takes the fact of no unclean animals as a given.

James had opinions about strangled animals and meat that was sacrificed to idols, and possibly about vegetarianism, but he’s silent about pigs, shrimp, mixing milk and meat, and so on.

Also, if Paul didn’t have a divine directive, then neither did Peter or James, so it’s strange that you bring them up to (try to) counter Paul.

Finally, Jesus invited his followers to consider sanctified wine the same as drinking his blood, which was abhorrent under Mosaic law.

The Jewish belief is that Leviticus applies only to Jews, not anyone else. Paul was evangelizing only entirely to Gentiles. Paul did not believe Gentiles needed to become Jews in order to become Christians.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/500dc7e1c4aac913a35a0c2c/t/5a3fdedf652dea3131019a44/1514135274455/Paul+and+the+Food+Laws+Final+.pdf

Doesn’t answer the question (again). God told Peter there are no unclean animals, and the whole metaphor doesn’t work without this understanding. Whatever you think about Peter and Paul’s relative positions on unclean men (Gentiles), again, the metaphor presupposes there being no unclean animals.

This is basic logic.

Although you’ve already dismissed Paul (he doesn’t support your argument), more sophisticated analyses look at the argument between Peter and Paul as being about (1) eating meat at all, or (2) Jewish Christian Ebonites and their belief that you shouldn’t eat at a table with unbaptized people. Interestingly, Paul talks about vegetarianism and tells people not to quarrel over food laws in Romans 14-21. Kosher laws don’t come into it.

PS. For the rest of you who must be wondering what this is about: I tried to make a point about how odd it is to focus on the Levitical prohibition of homosexuality when Christians don’t follow other Levitical rules like eye-for-eye, clothing rules, dietary laws, etc. Another poster wants to prove that Christian texts say Christians should keep kosher—which not only is flat-out contradicted by multiple passages in the gospels and letters, but which also derails from OP’s topic. Oh well, this is DCUM.

I haven’t seen any poster saying Christians should keep kosher.

Go back over the last several pages. Somebody thinks Christians and reform Jews are slackers because they don’t follow all the rules in Leviticus.

(Which would mean this person also thinks all Christians and Jews should abhor homosexuality, but that poster has lost the plot and I’m not sure she realizes that.)

No, I never said Christians are slackers. Leviticus doesn’t apply to Christians. I don’t think Reform Jews are slackers either because I believe Leviticus was written by men, not some Deity, if a Deity even exists.

9:16 said this: “ The Orthodox Jews follow Leviticus. Reform Jews don’t want to. Call them lazy, call them assimilationist. Christians cherry pick what laws they obey.”

Are you a different poster?

No, I’m that poster. I have never understood the position of the Reform Jews on Leviticus. They claim it’s God’s Law and the whole congregation stands when the Ark containing it is opened. But they don’t follow the law. I don’t get it. It makes no sense to me. As an atheist, I don’t follow it because I don’t believe it is law of any God.

How are you claiming that “nobody said Christians should keep kosher” when you’ve spent the last 3-4 pages posing unconvincing arguments about exactly that?

I never said Christians should keep kosher. I said Jesus never told Jews that they should stop keeping kosher.

10:28 said this: “Jesus never got rid of the dietary rules.” Which, obviously, would apply to Christians as well as Jews.

Is that you too?

Yes. I posted that. Jesus preached to Jews. Christianity broadened to gentiles after his death. The dietary rules apply only to Jews.

Jesus was a Jew, you know that, right? He was telling his fellow Jews that it doesn’t matter what goes in their mouths (you still have no good answer for that one), to drink wine as a metaphor for his blood (eating blood being an abhorrence to Jews).

Now I’m just convinced you’re arguing in bad faith.

Now we’re going in circles. As I said, Jesus was referring to Leviticus chapter 15. Specifically 15:11. We’re never going to agree on this so let’s stop boring the rest of DCUM.

When Jesus said “what goes into your mouth is not unclean” in Matthew, he wasn’t referring to the bodily discharges in Leviticus 15:11. You think Jesus was talking about oral sex?

But yes, if you want to keep pulling stuff out of your butt (literally) and lying about your own posts, then I’m done here. Good job representing atheists.

As I said before, under 15:11, anything a man touches after having a nocturnal emission becomes unclean until he cleanses himself. At Orthodox dinners, all the Jews ritually wash their hands before the meal because otherwise, they would be defiled by the food if they had had a nocturnal emission.

If Jesus actually meant that, he would had said, “what’s on your hands doesn’t make you unclean.” See the difference?

Moreover, Jesus wouldn’t have gone on to draw contrasts between what goes into your mouth and what comes out of your mouth. That contrast makes sense in the context of eating, but it makes no sense in your supposed context of nocturnal emissions and hand washing.

That might make sense if men had to wash their hands before doing anything. But they must only wash their hands before eating. In Orthodox households that’s still the case because otherwise, the food would defile their bodies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kinda cute that a secular/atheist Jew thinks she has more insight into Jesus’ thoughts, sayings and intentions than 2,000 years of Christians starting with Peter and Paul, the first of whom actually met Jesus and the second of whom knew disciples.

It is kinda cute isn’t it? Especially as I had a Protestant mother who taught Sunday school. It’s about as cute as someone who hasn’t spent years studying Jewish Law lecturing us on Jewish Law.

Nobody is lecturing you on Jewish law here. Only on how Christians use Jewish law, and it’s you trying to lecture us. Take it down a notch.

So where do you get your deep insights on Jesus’ own thoughts and intentions? Because obviously you know more than Peter, Paul, and 2,000 years of Christian theologians, so it would be great if you could share your font of wisdom. Oh wait, your insights come from your obvious hate and biases (sorry Mom).

Lump this in with your lying about your own posts, and you’re starting to seem like a real charmer.

When have I lied about my own posts?

When did I lie about my own posts. Jesus was talking about the elders criticizing his followers for eating bread with unwashed hands. Bread cannot be un kosher. Jesus never changed the Kosher laws. https://joshuaensley.org/2018/03/19/mark-7-did-jesus-change-the-biblical-dietary-laws/