Artful Dodger: lol

Bwild: hahaha I wasn't trying to be funny. I'm being theological. ;)

Artful Dodger: but thats the funny part!

Bwild: Just for that I'm gonna pray for you and get you converted!

Bwild: [ the 10 commandments are a tough act to follow,imo. ]

Not just your opinion. It's also the opinion of most teachers and ministers and Bible scholars. And they would go a step further to say that it isn't just a tough act to follow, but impossible. No one can reach adulthood or the age of accountability without breaking the 10 commandments.

[ bible thumping hypocrits are everywhere. ]

So? Hypocrites can be found anywhere and everywhere, including critics of Christianity. Did you read my messages, or are you only skimming through them to find grist for your mill? There are hypocrites who thump on bible thumpers, so what exactly is your point? If I seem perturbed it may be because you've managed to ignore most of what I've said and are starting over again.

Seriously, if you are only commited to thumping on bible thumpers, then there is nothing else for me to say.

Iamon lyme: Stop it! Now you're sounding like me again and I'm getting confused. Or - I couldn't have said it better myself ;)

Artful Dodger: [ Stop it! Now you're sounding like me again ]

I'm done with that. But you reminded me of something... I've been toying with the idea of intentionally sounding like you, but then I'd have to wait until you tell me if the conspiracy nuts, er, I mean theorists, are at it again. I still haven't seen much evidence of that at this board, mostly some vague references that could as easily mean something else. Oh well, I'll take what I can get.

heh heh heh *fart* heh heh heh heh... *belch*

Iamon lyme:

Iamon lyme: " man with flatulence,should not talk in circles!"

Bwild: I speak flatulance! Not sure about Iamon lyme

Artful Dodger: [ I speak flatulance! ]

Okay, but do you speak fluid flatulence? No no, I meant fluent flatulence!

I can fart in eleven different languages.

[ Not sure about Iamon lyme ]

I can flatulate with the best of them. Proving it is another matter.

mckinley: LOL Well, anyone who knows anything about Christianity can tell you (or the bank teller) that Christians aren't perfect.

If we were perfect we wouldn't need to be forgiven for anything. And Christ himself had a clever reply to his critics when they accused him of socializing with sinners. He said he came to save sinners, not the righteous... because the righteous don't need saving. Not only was that logical, but it had to sting the consciences of his critics... because even his critics knew they were not blameless and without sin.

I wouldn't worry over what the bank teller thought about it. For all you know the teller doesn't even know you, but if he/she does know you and condemns you for not being perfect, then he/she knows nothing about your faith.

Iamon lyme: What???? Seriously???? Crap. There goes my day.

Artful Dodger: [ What???? Seriously???? Crap. There goes my day. PS....stop making sense. You're scaring me. ]

Huh? What? Are you implying that up until now I haven't been making sense?

Oh crap, your'e right again! My identity is supposed to be wild and impulsive, and yours the sensible one. However, as I am only a figment of your imagination I need not take any responsibility for anything I say, because anything I say is on you. Or Bush, take your pick.

PS, are you sure the conspiracy nuts are still at it? I don't want to keep this up if everyone has figured out I'm actually just me.

Iamon lyme: How dare you accuse me of being sensible!

Iamon lyme: PS....stop making sense. You're scaring me.

Artful Dodger: [ PS....stop making sense. You're scaring me. ]

I have a deliciously delightful idea... let's both start talking like (V)

Iamon lyme: ?? What? .... straight?? Nahhhhhh

Iamon lyme: Talking like V? I need some tiquila for that.

Iamon lyme: Beacuse the saving then was in their hands... the dual state of concious and unconscious, the sleeper must awaken!!

mckinley: [ I've hung out with riff raff. Doesn't mean I did what they did ;) They are more interesting. ]

I've worked around people who make riff raff look very appealing. Some of them were fresh out of prison and acted like they couldn't wait to go back... apparently doing what it takes to maintain their freedom was too much to ask of them.

There are enough riff raff here for you to be entertained, and it's definitely safer hanging out with them here.

mckinley: its self explanatory.any educated person knows the meaning.
it does seem rather odd, that 2..now 3 christians here on this board want to criticize and ridicule anyone that throws out another option or opinion. so much for "brotherly love."
myself...I'll stick to the "harm ye none" philosophy.

Bwild: Wait a sec. How did we ridicule anyone?

Artful Dodger: Are they Christian in the acts they committed, or just calling themselves Christian?

(V): They weren't loving their neighbors that's for sure. Their actions weren't consistent with the teachings of the Faith.

Artful Dodger: Right, they were not. It is not consistent with Christ's teachings.

.. yet an eye for an eye is there in the Bible.

Yes, I know it could be said that it is a phrase in the OT, and Christ is of the NT. Yet the OT is part and is relied on to 'authorise' certain NT matters.. such as the coming of a Messiah, much regarding being 'gay' and the big argument over evolution.

All gone with no OT. Which contains the oral history of the Jewish people, written down. Including their wars, some notable geographic events and massacres done by the Jews.

.. The same God that Christ is of ordered, or did these massacres according to the OT.

That cannot be denied as written.. debatable if it was actually 'God'. It might just have been their justification for it all.

(V): as you know, Jesus corrected a lot of misunderstandings people had. That phrase first appeared in the Code of Hammurabi. In Jewish law it simply meant that adequate compensation should only be equal to the offense and no more (it was actually about limits.) It was not a literal statement.

Either way, you've strayed off the topic of Islam again.

Artful Dodger: No.. I'm just doing it in sections, doing it all in one leads to confusion and/or lots of presumptions on this board.

So, basically you are saying the phrase set limits on behaviour, and before that people were going to far, so much that compensation became revenge?

Like with the Jewish price taggers?

(V): I'm not saying it. It's the explanation I learned about that particular saying. It describes a principle of reciprocity. The punnishment ought to fit the crime. Jesus then came along and radicalized it!

Artful Dodger: That is an almost Heinlein style statement. But in that.. it was done to the letter. If someone did a hit and run and through not stopping, the victim incurred injury beyond the accident itself.. they were inflicted on the same injury and any subsequent delay in treatment..... In one universe that is.. no lawyers as well. Lawyers were wiped out some time in the past.

But back to.....

What is forbidden in all 3 Abraham based religions?

(V): ???

Artful Dodger: [ (V): ??? ]

I'll interpret for you: If you were legally crossing or traveling upon a dirt path and a camel bearing a rider ran over you, you had the right to run over the passenger of said camel utilizing a camel of similiar size and weight to the camel the aforementioned passenger was in control of at the time of the accident.

Accidents involving camels not carrying riders are exempt from the eye for an eye statute but require restitution from owner of said camel. Camels whose ownership cannot be established or proven must be given to victim of accident to be property of victim, at which time aforementioned said camel of questionable ownership status must relinquish all rights and privileges afforded without exception to all and any camels not previously bound by terms of ownership and/or contract.

Iamon lyme: What if the camel is pregnant?

Artful Dodger: Oh, well, that's a horse of a different color.

If the camel is pregnant then the charges are modified, because obviously the mother to be is having hormonal issues and cannot be held responsible for her actions, so in the case of no rider and/or non ownership the victim of said accident is fartfully out of luck.

However, in the case of a driver of a pregnant camel being directed by driver is said to be responsible for operating not only one, but two camels at the time of accident. So the victim has the choice of running over the driver with one camel of equal weight to camel pregnant with baby camel or two camels whose combined weight equals but shall exceed total weight of pregnant camel plus rider plus any and all other items having weight and are therefore subject to the laws of gravity.

Iamon lyme: Ok. Suppose there is a pregnant camel and a pregnant driver?

Artful Dodger: Awww crap!

I think I pulled a tendon (and/or ligament) in my brain.

Iamon lyme:

Artful Dodger: If the driver is pregnant then she can't be held responsible for the accident due to hormonal changes etc. The pregnant camel isn't to blame either as it's not the camel's fault that the driver is full of hormones. Therefore it's the fault of the other driver unless she too is pregnant. In that case it falls under the legal "No Fault" jurisprudence. If for some reason there isn't full clarity as to the no fault fault, then Bush is to blame.

Artful Dodger: GAzooKs, you're right! Double jeopardy... double the trouble for the unwary foot traveler.

But wait, what if the pregnant driver was texting or distracted by talking on a cell phone?! Legally speaking, would it still be considered Bush's fault by left leaning liberals and the mainstreaming media and Oprah and pregnant camels? Does Obama intend to avoid taking responsibilty for this as well?

Iamon lyme: Obama will say he was in Hawaii and there are no camels in Hawaii. Only whales and monkeys.

Artful Dodger: And... and what if the him and/or her person on the camel is NOT the owner of said preganat camel regardless of whether the person is pregnant or not? Huh? Yeah! What then?

Awww crap, now I'm starting to sound like (V)!

Is that what happened to him? I mean, was he okay until he started talking at this board?

Iamon lyme: Jules used to be a master designer of complicated mazes and after years of making master mazes for the masses he has trouble both walking a straight line and talking one too!

Maybe I'll takes a stab at the question just the same: "What is forbidden in all 3 Abraham based religions"

Farting in public?

No. That wont' do. In churches we sit in pews.

Artful Dodger: [ Maybe I'll takes a stab at the question just the same: "What is forbidden in all 3 Abraham based religions" ]

Is he saying there is only one common forbidden among the three?

The other puzzling thing is he talks about the Old Testament and New Testament as though they have nothing to do with one another... as though the two parts of the Bible have nothing to do with one another. Even orthodox Jews who do not recognise Yeshua as their messiah know the two are connected, even if they do not believe the New Testament to have any validity. But (V) talks about it as though they are two entirely different religions. I can't assume the third Abrahamic religion he refers to is Islam, because there is no connection between Abraham and that religion except through the son of the woman who was not his wife. But it probably is the religion he is refering to.



As the good book says... forever learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

Iamon lyme: It's a quiz game show.

Iamon lyme: More like Glenn Beck in his rewriting of American history lessons.

(V): [ Right, they were not. It is not consistent with Christ's teachings... yet an eye for an eye is there in the Bible. Yes, I know it could be said that it is a phrase in the OT, and Christ is of the NT. ]

Not just a phrase, but as AD pointed out it was a way for people to deal with people who would harm other people. Disincentives for commiting crime does work... criminals are immoral, not stupid. Just like anyone else, if they feel it's not worth the effort then chances are they won't do it.

The New testament marks the beginning of the New covenent. Until Christ came along, God delt with the people as the people changed. It started with one simple rule, then the rules progressively became more complicated as the people became more unruly.

[ Yet the OT is part and is relied on to 'authorise' certain NT matters.. such as the coming of a Messiah, much regarding being 'gay' and the big argument over evolution. All gone with no OT. Which contains the oral history of the Jewish people, written down. Including their wars, some notable geographic events and massacres done by the Jews. .. The same God that Christ is of ordered, or did these massacres according to the OT. That cannot be denied as written.. debatable if it was actually 'God'. It might just have been their justification for it all. ]

Spoken like a true atheist. On other occasions you've spoken of God as an invention of man, to control people or simply make them behave themselves. Either you believe in some other sentient being with the power of a god, or you don't believe in any god or gods. You still haven't explained or demonstrated how it is you are not an atheist... nothing you have said indicates a belief in anything resembling a god or gods. If it's a secret you don't want to share, that's fine with me. I'll accept your belief in The Unknown and Unproclaimed God as proof of your not being an atheist. I'll assume you are not lying, but that you just want to keep your undefined deity a secret.

Your secret is safe with me. shhhhhhhhh.....

Iamon lyme: Wow... you've decided that an atheist speaks a certain way, that critique of history of the use of the Bible is illegal and against God!!!

"On other occasions you've spoken of God as an invention of man, to control people or simply make them behave themselves."

Be specific. As at certain times God has been used in various ways throughout history... as did the Gods that came before and after

"but that you just want to keep your undefined deity a secret."

If you really mean that, there is no point.. You should give up Christianity and go and worship.... http://kevinsmith.propworx.com/files/2010/10/pr016.jpg ....