If it's in Genesis then it's in Christianity too.
German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'
- Thread starter dirtychinchilla
- Start date
If it's in Genesis then it's in Christianity too.
It is not part of the New Covenant. Earlier in this thread I also demonstrated that it may not have its origins in scripture either, but be a later addition due to a resurgence of cultural practices during Second Temple Juadism.
But God is never changing, so surely it's still true? (If you believe in this stuff)
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
In other words Christians believe the Bible is the word of God, only he made a mistake in how a lot of the Old Testament came across so he needed to write a new one which was bit nicer.
It's all a load of bollards anyway no matter which Holy book it comes from.
The Covenant of Abraham doesn't apply to Christians, the reason for the Old and the New Testament. In simple terms, Christians believe that the Old Covenant was fulfilled by the coming of Christ, and the New Covenant that he bought with him supercedes that which went before.
Also the Covenant of Abraham only refers to the Israelites. I refer you back to what I have posted earlier rather than repeating it all again.
In other words Christians believe the Bible is the word of God, only he made a mistake in how a lot of the Old Testament came across so he needed to write a new one which was bit nicer.
No they do not believe that.
Then why you are so invested in it?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Jesus didn't bring anything with him, the New Testament was written at least 40-300 years after his death (depending on who you ask).
*sigh* I said New Covenant, not New Testament. If you going to be critical of something, at least understand the fundamentals of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Who is this 'they', a handful of Christian theologians? The vast majority of people who claim to be Christian haven't even read a fraction of the stuff they claim to believe in let alone have any knowledge past the basics they've heard from their pastor (ergo the 'nice' bits that have been cherry picked from the Gospels for them).
Then why are so invested in it?
A fear of death I would attribute to most people's desire to believe I would guess, but you'd have to ask a psychologist who studies the subject. There was a chap on 4thought yesterday evening who was doing this very research but I can't remember his name.
Agree !
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
That belief still didn't occur until after Jesus' death given Christianity itself didn't exist until a couple of decades after his death.
And that has got to do with your comment how? Christianity is informed by some very standard doctrines and canon. The New Covenant being one of them.
I was refering to you, why are you so invested in this if it is a load of bollards as you put it......
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Because I believe mankind would be more advanced and the world would be a better place if people relied on logic and rationale rather than ancient superstition.
Probably the only position of 'faith' I hold.
The irony being, the quickest way to become an atheist is to read the Bible (as in all of it not the cherry picked bits).
You seem to be somewhat confused over what informs canon and scripture...you also seem ignorant of some very basic fundamentals regarding the creation of Christianity and how their beliefs were formed, including the concept of the New Covenant.....a concept that predates Christianity and Christ, hense the change from Messaniac Judaism and Jewish Christians into a more formalised and institutionalise religion that became known simply as Christianity and the fall of Second Temple Judaism and the rise of Rabbinic Judaism.
In any event the concepts inherent in the New Covenant and the fulfilment of the first existed long before the Birth of Christ.
Which is a very misinformed and narrow viewpoint that ignores historical events such as the fall of Rome and the spread of Science and Philosophy throughout Early Hinduism, the Golden Age of Islam and Christendom. Largely predicated by members of the respective religions in search of theological and philosophical answers. (not that people should rely on superstition rather than logic, only that being religious doesn't preclude critical thinking or logic....given Christian and relogious philosophers contribution to the concepts of Logic and Reason I would say that the two are not mutually exclusive)
People will have there own views on the impact that organised religion had on the interregnum and the inherent ability of a collapsed society to protect its knowledge without such organisations, but it should be considered that the Church (and previously the Caliphate) funded and encouraged scientific and social advancement, politics regarding some of those funded discoveries notwithstanding.
I would find it highly unlikely, given what you have said in this and other threads, that you have read the Bible yourself......
Last edited:
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Truth #1
Truth #2 - the same goes for the Jews' & Muslims' "Holy books".
Hope you don't mind, I have edited your post to make it slightly more concise!
Quite, to be honest that was all that was necessary as Estebanrey has no intention of actually learning anything, if his previous actions ate anything to judge by.
It's not just mutilation - Orthodox jews actually suck the foreskin from the baby's penis after a partial cut. I believe there were even some babies that contracted herpes off the back of this ritual? That second sentence might not be 100% correct so you might want to google it for accuracy!
I find it interesting how people treat it like a cultural quirk that should be respected unless we start talking about cutting off the labia or clitoris of little girls.
EDIT: Just reading back pages and some of you guys are comparing communist regimes with the evil done in the name of religion. You have to remember that the important distinction is that it is done BY religion; not in the name of it. The scriptures are as plain as day and you have to start removing parts or claiming that religious spokespeople are fundamentalists before you can even start to enter into modern thinking.
I find it interesting how people treat it like a cultural quirk that should be respected unless we start talking about cutting off the labia or clitoris of little girls.
EDIT: Just reading back pages and some of you guys are comparing communist regimes with the evil done in the name of religion. You have to remember that the important distinction is that it is done BY religion; not in the name of it. The scriptures are as plain as day and you have to start removing parts or claiming that religious spokespeople are fundamentalists before you can even start to enter into modern thinking.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
The Enlightenment was, IMO the greatest advancement of human knowledge and morality which was anti-religious belief and had to fight to ancient dogma constantly trying to suppress it.
Religion by definition in the suspension of critical thinking and anti-intellect.
The fact God didn't want Adam eating from the tree of Knowledge tells you all you need to know.
And if you have and still think it holds any water despite some of the horrific morality it advocates and the overwhelming number of contractions it displays what does that say about you?
Listen to the lady's testimony at 55 seconds, this is common and I've heard it 1000 times before...
If you've actually put any effort into trying to back up or justify the claims in the Bible and explain it's contradictions you've either not understood the Bible or you're some Ken Hovind character who has a vested financial interest in keeping the belief of the Bible's claims alive.