love your NEIGHBOR, like yourself

All religions other than Judaism are evil.

judaism is actually the source of evil of all the disgusting abrahamic monotheistic religions.

I prefer what's in Torah and Talmud: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto to you. Others may know this as The Golden Rule. In Judaism, we have the teaching or mitzvah to welcome the stranger among us. There are many stories of examples of this.

Many Christians can be guilty of committing evil things, yet I don't think it's fair to declare an entire religious tradition as [Italic] inherently [/italic] evil. Sadly there are plenty examples of religious people as poor role models, or those who fail to embody the essence of the true teachings. That doesn't mean Christians cannot be righteous wonderful people.

God is my Father. Which makes Jesus my brother. Therefore I cannot associate with any of you heathens. Stop blowing strangers...I mean, change your sinful ways, and then maybe we can talk. Go now in peace.

[quote] love your NEIGHBOR

I keep asking him, but he won't take me up on my offer.

Oh, well. His loss. I give a mean blowjob.

the very belief that a father has to sacrifice his own son in order to save somebody is extremely evil.these are sublimal unconcious messages to activate and bring up low instints in humunity and produce chaos in the world

R2 is why gulags were invented.

You are taking that scripture out of context. Neighbors refers to man-kind in general.

r8 no it doesn't

Some of my neighbors have been horrible people.

I was raised in a devout Baptist home and am well aware of Christianity’s shortcomings. But I think you may have missed the parable of the Good Samaritan. The point of that story is that your “neighbor” isn’t the person with the high social standing or the most outwardly pious. It’s the person who, despite being from a despised people - the “other” - treats you with mercy.

Evil people are what makes religions evil.

I don’t think any religion is bad. But just like any other movement it gets subverted by people with evil intentions who use it to control and manipulate others. Look at how blm has been affected.

R2 So tell us what you really think about Jewish people, if you seriously believe that.

I thought NEIGHBORS were just the people who live around you in your neighborhood. And they come in all shape, sizes, and types. Is this so hard to understand? Some are friends, and some are friends you haven’t met yet. Won’t you be my neighbor?

It’s not a uniquely Christian belief, it’s a restatement of Leviticus 19:18.

Religion is garbage.

It's not evil but honestly I'm not sure why they didn't throw the Old Testament in the garbage when inventing the religion.

r15 that is what that christians wants you to believe, but neighbors in ancient times consisted of people of the same clan and race. you can clearly see that that was the idea on leviticus. it was refering to actual brothers or people of the same tribe as brothers.

[quote]It’s the person who, despite being from a despised people - the “other” - treats you with mercy.

R11, you're overlooking the actual subtext of the 'Good Samaritan' parable (Luke 10:25-37), that the non-Jew is depicted as more honorable than the Jews. It was clearly understood by its intended readership, gentiles, 'scratching them behind the ears,' as it were, allowing them to feel more blessed and superior than the depicted Jews.

I didn't vote. Any religion can be made evil depending on how people interpret and apply the texts.

Religion can give great comfort but it can also provide an opportunity for control, power, and corruption. I don't think a person has to be religious to be good, moral, kind, and caring. And religious people are not all good and moral either.

My mother suffered greatly while living as a child with her cruel, cold Southern Baptist grandmother. Mom's true nature was to be sweet and loving but she was deeply hurt by mean granny. Was able to finally overcome the damage but it soured me on Christianity. Now when I see a certain type of woman like her granny I think Mean Christian.

[quote]I didn't vote. Any religion can be made evil depending on how people interpret and apply the texts.

Some texts are simply awful, and the only alternative is to simply leave them alone, and don't teach or follow them. A particularly nasty one is Matthew 25:29¹, "For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away." There's really no reasonable way to spin this as a positive; at best, it justifies crushing the poor.

¹ This one was duplicated at Matthew 13:12, in order to provide what's called a second 'witness.' The Principle of Witnesses (Deut.17:6, 19:15; Matt.18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1) was held necessary for anything to become a doctrinally approved practice. Practices that had only a single witness often had a second mention interpolated into either the same book, or another New Testament text held authoritative by a given Christian community. Other examples would be the Matthean community's doublet of the "fornication clause" for divorce (Matthew 19:8, interpolated also at 5:32), the injunction that women keep silent (1 Timothy 2:11-15 is the likely first instance of it, interpolated also back into 1 Corinthians 14:33b-35), and the mandate to torture recalcitrant sinners (likely first instance 1 Timothy 1:20, duplicated at 1 Corinthians 5:4-5). The 'hapax legomena' of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 are yet another example of multiplying witnesses.

Notice that Matthew 13:12 has little relevance to either the preceding or subsequent verses; as an interpolation, it breaks the flow of the original passage. But since the curators of 'Matthew' inserted a second instance of it here, you can be sure that someone in that community was seriously invested in 'taking away the little' that somebody had. That's just plain evil.

can anyone here who has read or owns a bible give me the passage that appears in one of the letters written by one the diciples (paul?) where he encourages christians not to seat along idol worshipers etc.?

R23, there's a few to choose from. 1 Corinthians 5:11 has, "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality* or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one."

1 Corinthians 10:7, "Do not be idolaters, as some of them were. As it is written: "The people sat down to eat and to drink, and got up to indulge in revelry.""

1 Corinthians 10:14, "Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry."

Were these what you had in mind?

* A poor choice of translation. It would be better rendered 'prostitution.'

[quote]I prefer what's in Torah and Talmud: Do unto others, as you would have them do unto to you.

R3 No, that's not what's in the Talmud/Torah. It's what's found in the Torah, וַיִּקְרָא 19:8

לֹא-תִקֹּם וְלֹא-תִטֹּר אֶת-בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ, וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ: אֲנִי, יְה

"Don't rise up and don't fall upon your people (your countrymen). Love your neighbour as yourself. I am G-d.

This injunction was meant for Jews in their own society. Not Catholics or Episcopalians or Baptists thieves stealing another nation's laws.

^^^^ וַיִּקְרָא 19:18 ^ ^^^

No religion is evil. They are life philosophies 101 for idiots like us in the age before mass education.

Those who use religion for their own selfish ends contrary to the teachings are the evil. That's like 99% of those who profess their religion loudly. Because idiots will be idiots.

[quote]No religion is evil... Those who use religion for their own selfish ends contrary to the teachings are the evil.

R27, that's a surprising statement coming from a poster who also said, "God is made is man's image. So if you're an asshole, your God is an asshole." (from R202 on '𝐖𝐡𝐨'𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐝? 𝐉𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫? '). Since you've admitted religion is created by people, why are you suddenly giving it a pass now?

[quote]Christianity is EVIL...

That case can be made, OP. However...

[quote]...and an instrument of very malicious entitities in the ethereal dimentions.

There's no evidence for these.

[quote]n Judaism, we have the teaching or mitzvah to welcome the stranger among us.

R3 A mitzvah (מצוה) is a duty or precept. There are 613 of them that regulate daily Jewish life. There is the mitzvah of welcoming guests (הכנסת אורחים), not "strangers". The injunction about "strangers" (also from ויקרא) has to do with their treatment within Jewish society.

Your "Judaism" is closer to Xtianity than Jewish law.

Religion is lies. Lies are evil. Religion is evil.

If you take Christianity to mean the words of Jesus, then no.

If you take Christianity to mean the words of Jesus, plus the words of the apostles, plus the Judaism crap in the Old Testament, then a pretty obvious yes.

Right now, there is no truer and more valuable expression of loving they neighbor than covering your face, practicing social distancing where appropriate, and washing your fucking hands.

But do I see churches urging their congregations to protect each other or do something for the good of their community? NO! The secular humanists are the ones following the common-sense precautions, while the idiot religious aren't doing shit.

OP deliberately ignores the ... like yourself ... part. The quote means exactly the same as "treat others like you want to be treated".

r30 and others, I think you're quite wrong. All desert cultures of the Middle East share the same precept, of welcoming the stranger. Why? Because the desert is a hostile environment. Someone who gets lost in the desert is at immediate risk of death - lack of water, lack of shelter from the sun, lack of edible plants. Anyone, at any time, could get lost or separated from his tribe- during a storm, during war, during a sandstorm, during night travel, etc. Therefore this code was inculcated in all desert cultures so that all could be certain of being given a safe haven when lost. In fact, modern day Bedouins are still famous for the way they take in strangers. This is not indefinite shelter of course. The expectation is that the stranger would move on, once fed and watered and given an opportunity to sleep There are many instances in Torah when the Israelites are reminded that they must be kind to foreigners, because once they themselves were foreigners in Egypt - so I think it's quite erroneous to claim that this merely meant kindness to other Jews.

There are so many versions of the "Golden Rule" in so many lands and religions, that one could say it is a practical application of something in human DNA - practical, because when benevolence or compassion is practiced towards others it can more likely be expected FROM others. There's a sort of a negative version found in the code of Hammurabi, there are versions very similar to the Bible's in Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, as well or course as Judaism and Christianity. That doesn't mean that people of these religions actually practice it.

[quote]There are many instances in Torah when the Israelites are reminded that they must be kind to foreigners, because once they themselves were foreigners in Egypt - so I think it's quite erroneous to claim that this merely meant kindness to other Jews.

Many instances in the Torah about kindness to strangers? No. One. As mentioned in R25. There are instances of parables about hessed (חסד) in other Jewish law books.

The injunction to love your neighbor as yourself pertains solely to Jews in Jewish society. It specifically says so in R25. Your understanding and interpretation are erroneous.

r36 No, your understanding is erroneous. I quote from "My Jewish learning"

"Mentioned no fewer than 36 times throughout Scripture, the Torah’s exhortations on the treatment of the stranger often appear with a companion explanation: Heed the stranger’s treatment because “you know the feelings of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23:9"

R37 36 times? And yet not ONE source reference in the original text except the one mentioned in R30.

That's the difference between being knowledgeable and having to depend on others for knowledge you would otherwise be utterly clueless about. It leads to a lot of erroneousness.

r30, either you're an idiot, a fuckwad, or you're deliberately being obtuse:

Just a few more examples:

Leviticus 19:18 states “Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.” לֹֽא־ תִקֹּ֤ם וְלֹֽא־ תִטֹּר֙ אֶת־ בְּנֵ֣י עַמֶּ֔ךָ וְאָֽהַבְתָּ֥ לְרֵעֲךָ֖ כָּמֹ֑וךָ אֲנִ֖י יְהוָֽה׃.

Leviticus 19:34 states “The STRANGER that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” כְּאֶזְרָ֣ח מִכֶּם֩ יִהְיֶ֨ה לָכֶ֜ם הַגֵּ֣ר הַגָּ֣ר אִתְּכֶ֗ם וְאָהַבְתָּ֥ לֹו֙ כָּמֹ֔וךָ כִּֽי־ גֵרִ֥ים הֱיִיתֶ֖ם בְּאֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרָ֑יִם אֲנִ֖י יְהוָ֥ה ...

Deuteronomy 26:12 mentions the tithe of crops which must be given to the poor in the third and sixth years of the Sabbatical cycle while Leviticus 23:22 states that the remnants of the harvest must be left for the “poor and THE STRANGER ובקצרכם את־קציר ארצכם לא־תכלה פאת שדך בקצרך ולקט קצירך לא תלקט לעני ולגר תעזב אתם אני יהוה אלהיכם

Deut. 15:7 mentions the obligation to give loans to the poor according to their needs. This loan must be given without interest (Leviticus 25:36) and it must be forgiven in the Sabbatical year (Deut. 15:1).

We are obligated to celebrate our holidays together with the strangers, orphans and widows (Deut. 16:14). ושמחת בחגך אתה ובנך ובתך ועבדך ואמתך והלוי והגר והיתום והאלמנה אשר בשעריך׃

Now stop trying to pretend you have cornered the market on traditional Jewish theology.

R39 So much effort and all for nothing. The problem is that you have zip understanding of Hebrew or Jewish law. You're dependent on English translations which are at best bad and at worst horrendous. You've jumbled up injunctions concerning how Jews should treat one another in Jewish society with how Jews should treat the גר. גר which you erroneous translate as "foreigner" (נכרי) or "stranger" (זר) actually means someone non-Jewish who dwells within the Jewish nation either temporarily or permanently. It's a tough word to translate. Non-Jews who join the tribe, convert, are often called גר . And no, it does not mean "convert".

[quote]Now stop trying to pretend you have cornered the market on traditional Jewish theology.

It's not "theology" and it's certainly not "traditional". It's Jewish LAW, the foundation of Jewish life, culture and nationality and what Jews around the world live every day. You're attempt to interpret according to your non-Jewish sensibilities, in addition to your ignorance of Hebrew, must be indeed frustrating. Perhaps you should concede your complete ignorance . . . sorry . . . erroneousness and find something less challenging and more in your line of knowledge.

For R25/R30 Enough with telling a Jew his Jewish learning is more like Christianity. You're probably the same occasional poster who has an axe to grind with "assimilated" Jews, and Reform Jews.

The teachings are quite similar, yet worded differently. The inverse is often popularly expressed in the English language. Do not do.... same essential teaching, but that does NOT make it Christian, as Christ and a religion called Christianity came later.

In addition to being wrong, you're annoying and offensive. Well done, great job.

As regards welcoming the stranger, you are wrong as well. You must not be a very good scholar of Talmud, as there are several stories of the rabbis living this mitzvah for us. You can try to impress people with your keyboard's ability to type Hebrew characters, but you don't fool me.

For R25 / R30 's further clarification on Jewish teachings regarding the stranger....

It's amusing to me when people get into discussions about religion and then tell each other they're wrong in their understanding, knowledge, and interpretations.

We won't know if we were right or wrong until we're dead. IMO death is like what we experienced before birth. Nothing. A void. Non-existence. Gone.

I base my theory on observing elderly relatives with dementia. As their brains withered and died and they sunk into a netherworld of vague impressions and infant-like behaviors, one could see the end of their personalities and awareness on their journey to ashes. Niggling over details doesn't help. We have to be our best, kindest selves while we can, none of us really knows what happens next or which profit or sage had definitive answers.

Call me wrong, I don't care. It's how I choose to cope with the great unknowns.

It's not that one is wrong per se R43 in an interpretation, but moreover the attribution. That's putting a finer point on some of what's going on here. It's scholarship, as well as one's understanding, or rather one's gift for distilling the essence of such teachings... Not that one is more or less valuable, or right or wrong spiritually speaking.

In Judaism we avoid the snare of purely semantic arguments by considering the long studied views of the rabbis, their clarifications, thoughts, and interpretations. We do not always look on certain or given words so simply.

Therefore we understand quite easily when someone such as R30 is denying the true meaning or essence of the command to welcome the stranger. He's using semantics to portray Jews in a poor light, suggesting we only treat visiting members of our own tribe or religion with hospitality, acceptance, or generosity. Not so.

r40 4 times you have moved the bar in order to pretend to be right. First according to you, there were no examples of injunctions for Jews to be kind to strangers in Torah. Then, whoops, your complaint was that there was only one. Then whoops, there were more, but they only referenced נכרי or זר - different words, which you then assign the same meaning to. (According to you, one means foreigner, the other means stranger but BOTH refer ONLY to non-Jewish people living within the Jewish community.) Yet according to Talmud, there are no synonyms in classical Hebrew. So which is it? You are referring to ger toshav and ger tzedek in your long explanation, but nakri and ger are not the same words with the same meaning (according to Talmud).

But going back to the injunction from Leviticus to love your neighbor as yourself as "neighbor" only applying to fellow Israelites, there's an excellent long article about this very topic linked below, by Jewish scholar Richard Elliot Friedman. He does not agree with your point, but he recognizes that it is ONE possible interpretation of that passage, and lists several people who have promulgated that point of view, but then goes on to show that the word for neighbor in Hebrew was often used in Torah and elsewhere to mean non-Israelites. Moreover, the passage in Leviticus mentioned above follows closely on other injunctions to be kind to strangers and foreigners.

You can pretend that law is not theology and that law is immutable, but Talmud and Mishnah exist precisely because there was confusion about the law as given in Torah concern about possible misinterpretations and its applications in practical terms. And still people are arguing about it almost 2000 years later as this forum proves.

R45 Thank you for your posts menluvinguy. Both zar and nochri certainly to me mean alien, or foreigners.

This thread is an antisemitic roach motel!

R28 I'm superwowed to have you as a fan but this thread is too religion with strange squiggly writing for me. Ta!

the OP is of course wrong.

this is from quite a conservative xian site:

Who is your neighbor? We can certainly read the parable of the Good Samaritan and come away with a greater understanding of our duty to love those society considers outcasts — immigrants, minorities, refugees, the homeless, and the infirm. We can think of this in terms of social justice, and we should. But the call to love your neighbor is more intimate than that. It should hit us close to home. Your neighbor is your suite-mate who leaves nasty notes on your door. Your neighbor is the classmate who teases you for being different. Your neighbor is the one down the hall who spreads false gossip about you. Your neighbor is the boyfriend or girlfriend who broke your heart. Your neighbor is the uncompromising professor who seems to have it in for you. Your neighbor is the mentor who let you down. Your neighbor is the friend who wasn’t there for you when you needed them. Who do you not get along with right now? Whom do you harbor negative feelings for? Whom do you seek to avoid as you walk across campus? This is your neighbor whom you are called to love.

it is very clear that if Im not your NEIGHBOR, then it is because, logically, Im the outsider.

r49 that is the interpretation that these institutions give to entice followers into their cults.

R20 - You couldn't be more wrong. The audience that both the Old and New Testaments were written for was Jewish. The stories are told in parables because Jewish audiences would have understood that parables were teaching mechanisms that were not to be taken as literal history. The first followers of Jesus were Jews. Paul, the author of about 30% of the New Testament was writing to Jews as were the authors of the Gospels. People of Samaria were looked down upon by Jews. The whole point of the story of the Good Samaritan was that we should treat everyone, even those who we denigrate and judge, as our brothers.

The problem with most religion is the dogmatic, man-made rules. If you strip most religions, including Christianity and Judaism, down to their pure spiritual components, they can be beautiful. The problem is finding a religious community that thinks that way, but there are many if you look.

All religious teachings are much too much a matter of black vs white. Either/Or. There is absolutely nothing about human existence which can be viewed in a simple black/white way. We are creatures of circumstances and conditions! There are always considerations and logical analysis pertaining to the issues we face as people. It is NEVER as simple as blind obedience to authority earthly or beyond! Consideration of context is applicable when discussing religion. Life was generally not appreciated. Life was brutal. Religious teaching is not only instruction on how to be a good person, it is also a guide on how to survive!

R11 is right. the word neighbor doesn't refer to family who lives next door. The context is when the disciples asked "who is my neighbor?" Jesus told the parable of the Samaritan. To our ears it's just a story without any meaning, but it was quite subversive back then.

Here's a modern day DL version: One day a flaming homosexual man was going for a jog, he was mugged and beaten and left for dead. Judy Garland, RuPaul, and Randy Rainbow all walk by, but don't help the man. Finally, Jerry Falwell walks by, sees the man is in distress, and calls 911, and stays with him until help comes, paying for the ambulance out of his own pocket.

Jesus says "which of these was most like a neighbor to the man?"

We reply, "that piece of shit Jerry Falwell".

Jesus replied, "Go and do likewise".

I’m exhausted

R41 R42 R44 Jewish law wasn't written in English. It was written in Hebrew. Which you have no knowledge of and like R35 R39 are dependent on others to tell you what's written, including their often erroneous translations and interpretations. "The teachings are quite similar, yet worded differently" is the crux of the problem; you can't comprehend the words, the "teachings" in the original. Such as "stranger". Which the injunction does not mention in the Hebrew source text. Ignorance of the source language most often leads to a complete divorce between the source text and its meaning, and far worse, removes Jews from the source and essence of their law and language. There is a reason that Jews spend their lives learning their laws and history in HEBREW, the language in which those "rabbis" provided their "clarifications", "thoughts" and "interpretations" for eons.

[quote]He's using semantics to portray Jews in a poor light, suggesting we only treat visiting members of our own tribe or religion with hospitality, acceptance, or generosity. Not so.

As a Jew you should be well aware that Jews are not a "religion" and the word "Judaism "is a Xtian invention. You should also be aware that your need to reassure whoever reads your post that "Jews don't solely look after their own" is the product of 2,000 years of being a discriminated against, despised and persecuted minority in someone else's country. Unfortunately for you, your "Judaism" is so muddle up with the sensibilities of the Xtians whose goodwill you are dependent upon for your continued existence that it's damn near impossible to delineate any difference between them.

R45 More effort for zip. Questions/clarifications that you could have answered yourself if you could read the Hebrew you posted in R39. Such as "You are referring to ger toshav and ger tzedek in your long explanation". If you could READ the original text you posted, you would see/understand that I was referring to exactly what was written, גר.

But that's the problem when you are ignorant and have to depend on others to translate, and that using terms such as גר תושב and גר צדק (which are not mentioned in the source text and which we both know you haven't a fucking clue in hell about their mean) simply serve to further highlight that ignorance.

Perhaps Rabbi Friedman is a great scholar. But I don't require his "interpretation" of law that I can read and understand perfectly well myself. Just as you don't require interpretation of the sentence "The chair is green" to know what color the chair is.

The Mishnah is a part of, not separate from, the Talmud. Again, you continue to use terms ignorantly. There are actually two Talmuds, Babylonian and Jerusalem, containing teachings and opinions on Jewish law and daily life. Your assertion about "confusion" and "misinterpretation" are based on your own "confusion" and "misinterpretation" and, as I've oft-repeated ignorance about anything to do with Jewish law, history, etc.

Are you done? Because that was a lot of bullshit. Classical Hebrew has not been a spoken language for 2500 years. Just as Latin, and Sanskrit, the language as a SPOKEN language died out millenia ago. Modern Hebrew, as a spoken language, had to be reconstructed and then codified by Ben Yehuda and others, so knowledge of Modern Hebrew isn't a substitute, because while it uses a lot of Biblical Hebrew, some of its grammar and a good bit of its vocabulary is different from classical Hebrew - the meaning of many words has changed. Aramaic had supplanted Hebrew as a spoken language by 300 BCE and Talmudic Aramaic also died out before the middle ages as a spoken language.

Why do I bring that up? Because EVERYONE since 300 BCE has had to learn classical Hebrew from ANOTHER LANGUAGE, just as the monks of medieval times into the Renaissance had to learn Latin from ANOTHER LANGUAGE. Yes, theological languages continue to this day, both in their written forms and in the spoken forms in ritualistic prayers., but they still must be taught and meanings must be assigned to specific combinations of sounds, as a SECOND LANGUAGE, and a literary (non-spoken) language at that. Yes, the Talmud was written in Mishnaic Hebrew as well as Aramaic, as religious literary languages, but there is no evidence that the rabbinical writers commonly spoke it in their daily lives, just as popes wrote encyclicals in Latin, but used other languages as their spoken languages. . Were you born from the womb speaking classical Hebrew? If you were not, you learned Hebrew from ANOTHER LANGUAGE. Which meant that your Hebrew teacher pointed to a series of letters, whatever they were, and pronounced the combination, and had you pronounce it, and then said, in Hebrew this combination of sounds has the meaning of the word we call "X" in our language. "Now let's say it and use it in a sentence" , or "let's read it in the context of the Torah".

Why is all that relevant? Because you are fixated on the notion of words or concepts that cannot be translated from Hebrew to any other language and how all the relevant meaning is lost. Pity the 70 Jewish scholars that translated the Torah and other Jewish scriptures into Greek in 300 BCE (the Septuagint). What a a horrible waste of effort on their parts. Not to mention the various translations into Aramaic, other Greek translations that adhere more closely to the Masoretic texts than the Septuagint, and of course versions in various modern world languages, including many in Yiddish, as well as English, French, Russian, etc. . Of course, it's understood by anyone who translates that subtleties of meaning are lost at every turn. My point is that the meaning assigned to any particular classical Hebrew word is ALSO a translation, as it is a non-spoken literary language. Your understanding of the meaning of some of the Hebrew terms under discussion was formed in your childhood by some teacher or teachers, not by your inherent understanding of the language as a native speaker and has been colored by the interpretation/translation of your teachers, who themselves learned Hebrew as a non-spoken literary language.

I understand the desire to establish authority by reference to original text and original source, especially in a religion whose continuity has been maintained by its reverence for "the Book". That's a problem when the language itself ceased to be spoken 2200 years ago, and became a literary language. All bets about "source" meaning have been off ever since, since meaning since that time can only be established by reference to some other language.

You still confuse commands with laws.

You love your neighbor as yourself. You just do. Yeah, you’re out of alignment and you can’t talk to fairies about it.

You love your god with all your might. You do.

I know. It hurts.

R58 You do keep right on highlighting your appalling ignorance and truly believing it's in some way relevant.

[quote]Classical Hebrew has not been a spoken language for 2500 years. Just as Latin, and Sanskrit, the language as a SPOKEN language died out millenia ago.

There is no such thing as "classic" Hebrew. The Hebrew of the Bible is spoken today on the streets of Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem. As Hebrew was considered לשון קודש it was not spoken daily. Aramaic was until the Roman expulsion. Then Hebrew became the common language that united expelled Jewish communities around the world. Hebrew was and remains the language of law, responsa, Rabbinic rulings, documentation, commerce, etc. Any speaker of Hebrew can pick up and read and understand the Bible, the Talmud, the Mishnah, the Gemara and 1,800 years of Rabbinic ruling and teaching. I can pick up and easily understand Maimonides איגרות written in the 12th century in Hebrew. Non-Hebrew speakers like you can't. Yet you not only continue to insist otherwise, but demand that others accept your ignorant assertions. Uh, no. It's appalling ignorance. Perhaps even arrogance. But what it most certainly not is anything within light years of accuracy about Jewish history, language, or law.

As mentioned in R56 , Jews are a nation, "Judaism" is a Xtian invented word, in addition to discrimination and persecution, another means to annihilate Jews.

Thank you for the opportunity to enlighten you. Or rather to disabuse you of the notion that your bigoted, arrogant ignorance about Jews should prevail.

[quote]You love your god with all your might. You do.

R59 Please explain why I must love something that there is no demand to believe in?

Meh. Christianity is like most things, say like fire. It can be used for good or evil.

Ridding the world of Christianity will simply make those who use it one way or another find a different tool to do whatever it is they were trying to do. On the bright side, it might be a less homophobic tool.

Jewish, Christian, and islamic scripture is full of "ritual blood sacrifice“ (human or animal).

Sounds pretty satanic to me.

It works precisely for you, r61. Be happy with it.

[quote]R20 - You couldn't be more wrong. The audience that both the Old and New Testaments were written for was Jewish. The stories are told in parables because Jewish audiences would have understood that parables were teaching mechanisms that were not to be taken as literal history. The first followers of Jesus were Jews. Paul, the author of about 30% of the New Testament was writing to Jews as were the authors of the Gospels.

Well, R52, that's an admirable recitation of standard Christian belief about the bible and Christian origins. Clearly you passed Sunday school. But with regards to the New Testament, you're confusing the anonymous authors of the various pieces with the characters in their narratives. They are not the same. Jesus, the disciples, and Paul are 𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 of Jews in the narratives, written by Greek authors, with the overall thrust of the narratives being the negation of Judaism in favor of Christianity. It's why they are always being depicted as 𝐽𝑒𝑤-splaining to the other depicted Jewish adversaries, criticizing depicted Jewish practices and beliefs (I emphasize 'depicted' because these are almost always a distortion of actual Jewish practices and beliefs), and generally teaching 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑚, the idea that if one is a Jew wanting to become right with God, one must accept Jesus and become a Christian.

None of this was something written 𝑏𝑦 Jews, 𝑓𝑜𝑟 Jews. Had any of it been, it would not have been written in Greek, which the entire New Testament was. Use of the Greek version of the 'Old Testament' (an offensive and presumptuous appellative, that) was appropriated for use by Greek believers; they regarded 'God' as having rejected the Jews, and as belonging to them thenceforth. Note, however, that they appropriated only as much of it as was culturally convenient to practice; the diet and many of the other religious observances were not carried over. (Kindly do not cite material from 'Acts' which relate the Christian-belief version of how this was arrived at; that isn't factual.) The real reason why so few Jewish observances came across was because there was next to no actual contact between the Christians and actual Jews. Christians only acquaintance with Jewish religion was from the Septuagint, and from observance of diasporic, rabbincal Jews whom they saw and treated as outsiders, from the 2nd century onward. And again, because it bears repeating, the Jews in the New Testament were depictions, characters in stories, not actual persons. The closest Christians ever got to these was listening to gospel narratives read to them by someone literate.

OP you are bold and fearless for posting this thread.

Now do Islam.

All religions are evil.

R56 I'm not quite sure how you are able to judge my proficiency in reading Hebrew. I generally do not express myself in Hebrew, nor is my iPad capable of using Hebrew characters. I'm not about to type transliterated Hebrew here for you. Not necessarily the point here, however you undermine and disrespect all rabbis throughout the world who write and teach in languages other than Hebrew.

They're all wrong? What's the problem with their Hebrew proficiency and interpretation? Rabbi Sacks somehow got it wrong?

You still fail to make your case. Whether referencing the Babylonian Talmud, are you attempting to make such a case that one is more valuable or central to the faith? I think perhaps you need to work on expressing yourself better in English.

R56 Whether you agree this is the "proper" interpretration or not, is irrelevant to the many different Jewish traditions and congregations which teach it. To follow, another link below for you from my previous synagogue, living in NYC.

I'm still perplexed by [italic] your [/italic] misinterpretation of the teaching. You're either an Arab Israeli with little respect for Jews and Judaism, or you're part of the divisive and contentious Orthodoxy in Israel, or from Israel.

Very often both have very little regard for other Jews and Jewish congregations throughout the rest of the world.

Heathens: It's " Love thy neighbor as thyself." It's " as," not " like." Love you neighbor as you love yourself. "Love you neighbor, like yourself," means that we should love our neighbor, but merely like ourselves.

[quote] I generally do not express myself in Hebrew, nor is my iPad capable of using Hebrew characters. I'm not about to type transliterated Hebrew here for you. Not necessarily the point here,

R58 It is EXACTLY the point. Hebrew is the language of the nation of Israel. Its laws, commentaries, responsa, teachings are all in Hebrew. Hebrew was the language of the Jewish nation and the common language for a nation dispersed. Yiddish is 50% Hebrew, Ladino, 40% Hebrew, Judeo French and Italian 25-30% Hebrew. Not English, French, Russian or Spanish. By removing themselves from Hebrew, those "rabbis who teach in other languages" remove themselves from their history, laws and very essence and far worse, remove those who depend on their "interpretations" even further and directly contribute to the destruction of the Jewish nation. A nation who cannot read or understand its laws and history ceases to be a nation.

R71 You're still ignoring the teachings. The rabbis who lived by example for us in in the Talmud also suffered from poor Hebrew? If you're Jewish, you're one of the very rare "Yidiots" amongst us. I'm very sorry for you.

R70 uh.. no.

R71 Furthermore, many of the great rabbis learnt other languages throughout history. (Latin, Greek, Spanish, Arabic, Aramaic) They could speak them as well. What a rubbish argument that speaking or learning another language (or more) is "removing themselves from their history and laws"

You ignore both history and Talmud.

[quote]Very often both have very little regard for other Jews and Jewish congregations throughout the rest of the world.

R72 Your entire knowledge of the Jewish nation is defined by living as a minority in a Xtian society. The concept of "Orthodox" is yet another Xtian invention. It has nothing to do with regard and everything to do with looking at various Jewish communities who have allowed the foreign nation they live in to dictate their national identity.

How in the world can you take anyone to task about "teachings" when you haven't a clue what those "teachings" say? At least those "rabbis" could read and understand the law. You're reduced to parables and stories a la Tzena Ureina.

75 replies on a thread about loving your neighbor, and not one mention of Joel?

Op, you are an idiot.

R76 Joel? The Book of Joel is mostly farming and bugs.

R75 I've lived in four countries. Now which nation exactly have I allowed to "dictate" my national identity? I now leave the US regularly to live in a fifth country, or island nation for part of the year. My ancestors come from Poland, Germany, and Hungary. I feel quite international, or cosmopolitan. I'm dictated by no state or government.

Some of us do not have "identity" as you understand the notion or term as a driver or obstacle in our ability to reason, read Hebrew texts, or confer with our rabbi. You sound like a nationalistic Hebrew supremacist actually. If you prefer, I can refer to you as Haredim, or Haredi. You still are at odds with the majority of Jews living throughout the rest of the world.

Your divisiveness and contentiousness is evidenced by your condescension and negativity here on this thread, rather than expressing or feeling the brotherhood, or Ahkh-VAH for your fellow Jews. It would appear you have a disdain for good, common, and respectable Christian teachings as well, since you enjoy tossing Christian around as an insult.

Shalom

r59 every religion command their followers to love their deities. there is nothing special about the jewish "god" jehova.

r75 Since you are fixated on Hebrew and Hebrew alone as defining Jewish law, perhaps you can explain what you are doing on a gay forum in light of:

וְאֶ֨ת־ זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תֹּועֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

any religion that teaches that heterosexuality is normal and a healthy lifetyle is evil. Gnostics knew that demons were punished with that unholy condition.

This thread is exactly why I'm not religious.

Tediousness on steroids.

However, I do enjoy my Christmas decor and festive customs of all religions, including music and song. "A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones" (Proverbs 17:22) are words to live by.

I prefer Antiverbs 1:03:

If you smell a fart, thirteen to one it’s Martha.

Well, isn’t heterosexuality one of the many curses this loving "god" threw at us humans for that really bad sin in that garden of eden? The pain of childbirth?

Funny, all other mamals werw punished with that curse as well.. the god must be north Korean.

R81, what do 𝑦𝑜𝑢 think of Leviticus 18:22?

r81 can you please translate that hebrew sentence?????

R87, it's Leviticus 18:22, or at least part of it: 'You shall not lie with a male as with a female.'

R73, YES.

Genesis 19: The story of Sodom and Gomorrah

This has been held up as a cautionary tale about the sinfulness of homosexuality. However, many scholars point to Ekezial 16:49 as indicating that the cities were destroyed by God for not helping the poor and needy. Some also say the sinful sex occurring in Sodom and Gomorrah was rape, which means it doesn't apply to teachings on consensual same-sex relationships.

Sodom was destroyed for what the Republicans advocate.

Leviticus

R70/R89, no. The English word 'like,' used as a conjunction, functions the same way as the conjunction 'as.' They are synonyms. It is unrelated to the meaning of the word 'like' used as a verb.

R91, here is my exposition of the passage:

The Hebrew of Leviticus 18:22 isn't as clear as commonly rendered in English bibles. A word-for-word translation runs something like this: 'And with male not lay/lyings beds of woman; abomination it.' The exact meaning of this is inscrutable, likely that of an idiom now lost to us, in the same way the meaning and context of Deuteronomy 14:21b ('not do boil a young goat milk of his mother') was lost to the medieval rabbis who eventually concluded - almost certainly mistakenly - that it was somehow banning the mixture of meat and dairy products.

Anyone who tells you that Leviticus clearly condemns homosexuality is handing you a load of bull.

Overall, Leviticus chapter 18 is a halakhic meditation¹ on other passages of scripture, specifically Ezekiel 22-23 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18.² The Deuteronomy passage condemns temple functionaries who served the larger Hebrew/Canaanite pantheon, gods besides just YHWH, and Ezekiel chapters 22-23 inveigh against political alliances with nations that worshiped other gods. (In Ezekiel chapters 22-23, the whole spiel from Leviticus 18 is on display - different types of illicit sexual unions, bestiality, and even human sacrifice - for example, compare Ezek.23:37 to Lev.18:21). To the mindset of the Deuteronomist, all such worship was characterized as 'prostitution,' even though there was no literal sexual activity involved; the invective in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel was metaphorical. This was how the 𝘲𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘮 ('holy ones') of Deut.23.17³ and 1 Kings 14:24 wound up mischaracterized as "shrine prostitutes," which in turn led to the mistaken impression that, since the actors were male, some kind of same-sex sexual activity was in view. The Leviticus passages are really an abstruse prohibition of idolatry. Nothing about them has anything to do with homosexuality.

And "abomination"? The Hebrew word 'tō-w-‘ê-ḇāh' merely denotes a ceremonial or ritual taboo which one must avoid in order to remain a Jew in good standing. It's most typically used of idolatry (Deuteronomy 7:26), but can also mean a violation of the Jewish dietary laws (Deuteronomy 14:3). Practices labeled 'abomination' were characterized as being done by gentiles, hence impure or unclean. The New Testament firmly put this distinction to rest in Acts 10:28: "He (Peter) said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with a foreigner or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean." Simply put, "abomination" has no relevance for Christians.

¹ Halakhic commentary is where sages studied passages of scripture (in this case, Ezekiel 22-23 and Deuteronomy 23:17-18), and articulated what they felt were the issues as discrete laws. The overall effect was to translate what had been metaphorical language (for example, Ezekiel 23:20) into a literal precept (Leviticus 18:23).

² How can Leviticus be commentary upon Deuteronomy and especially Ezekiel? Because books of the bible were not composed in the order in which they are placed, nor were they written by those to whom they are attributed. Leviticus is a priestly work from as late as the 1st century BCE/CE, as much an unrealized hypothetical as Ezekiel's temple; its precepts were never actually put into practice, until much later, when Rabbinic Judaism placed the book among the writings of Moses, the Torah, when it began to be read, memorized, and recited by Jews.

³ Deuteronomy 23:17-18: "“None of the daughters of Israel shall be a 𝘲𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘩 ('holy one,' feminine), and none of the sons of Israel shall be a 𝘲𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 ('holy one,' male). You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of YHWH your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to YHWH your God.'" Again, it bears repeating that the only sense in which the 'holy ones' were "prostitutes" was metaphorical, the Deuteronomists' way of referring to idolatry or of political alliances with nations considered idolators.

R92, parallel structure indicates an imperative sentence with "love" and "like" being the verbs. The structure was clumsy .

Parallel structures in Hebrew do not necessarily carry across into English, R94. It cannot dictate how English functions, where 'like' is a conjunction, synonymous with 'as.' Perhaps English is unsuited to properly render the passage in question. But I think it conveys the meaning sufficiently.

R90. here's what I would say of Sodom and Gomorrah:

Sodom and Gomorrah didn't exist. The narrative of Genesis 19 is plagiarized from the older story in Judges 19, in many places word-for-word. The Genesis passage represents an embellishment of the other, giving it what the scribes felt was a more satisfying, vengeful ending. Nothing sexes up a story like striking people blind, and raining fire and brimstone on them.

Another clue that it's fictional is that the names of the towns in Genesis 19 are reflections of the roles they play in the narrative: 'Sodom' means 'burnt,' 'Gomorrah' means 'terrible people,' and 'Zoar' means 'little.' Ask yourself - how can a town be named 'burnt' 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 its supposed judgment fell? It's a literary device.

But other passages in the bible illustrate how the story was interpreted. "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). The New Testament taught that it was inhospitality; Mark 6:10-11; Matt.10:14-15; Lk.10:10-12, where towns' refusal to receive evangelists is expressly compared to Sodom and Gomorrah. Nothing there about homosexuality.

Translating from one language directly to another doesn't work, especially when intrinsic meaning and nuance of the original text is unknown. It tends to make a complete nonsense of the original text and cause misunderstanding and confusion in the translation. The misunderstanding and confusion compound out of all proportion (and understanding) when the original text is translated and retranslated to suit various linguistic and social sensibilities.

R93 rightly states that there is no prohibition against homosexuality in Jewish law. However, I don't know where R93 obtain the "word for word" translation cited for ויקרא 18:22 but it's wrong.

וְאֶת-זָכָר--לֹא תִשְׁכַּב, מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה: תּוֹעֵבָה, הִוא.

The word זכר can be translated as "male". It can also be translated as "youth (male)" and "child" (male). The injunction was against pedophilia, which was enthusiastically practiced several non-Jewish tribes.

The exact meaning is not "inscrutable" or due to "lost idioms". The exact meaning is very clear to anyone who understands the meaning and nuances of Hebrew and the laws and life of the nation of Israel. The original text, the exact meaning was an injunction against adopting the practices/ways of non-Jewish tribes, i.e., against assimilation, as so many of injunctions in Jewish law are, such as the laws of Kashrut, mentioned by R93 ("seething a kid" etc). The exact meaning was "lost" due to a nation in exile forced to amend/adapt its laws to suit the sensibilities of the majority whose goodwill it was dependent upon for continued existence. And of course by the theft of its laws by Xtianity and Islam.

Another HUGE area of misunderstand/mistranslation is in the use of ניקוד , the diacritic marks that represent vowels and alternative pronunciations. The Tanakh, Talmud, Rabbic rulings, responsa, etc. were and are not written with ניקוד . So for those without an intimate understanding of Hebrew, mistranslations are not only easy, but inevitable. Which is why the word זכר is so misunderstood and mistranslated by those who do not have a thorough understanding of Hebrew.

I'm not saying that r97 is wrong, but I would say that over the course of history, most Jewish sages have held that the meaning of this passage is prohibition of male homosexual activity. So much so, that by analogy, Maimonedes also felt that this passage also prohibited female homosexual activity. Typically, Jewish communities of the past rejected gay people, and we have to assume it was because of this passage. Therefore, I cannot feel that the words of the original Hebrew make the meaning crystal clear to anyone who knows Hebrew. Almost everyone attempting to translate them seem to be in agreement that the grammar, the syntax, and the use of ish and zachar, as well as plural forms for women, render this passage and its exact meaning extremely obscure. In modern day Judaism, the Orthodox, by and large, believe this verse forbids male homosexual activity. The Conservatives seem to believe that that was the original meaning, but that it is only one of the 613 commandments, and no different/ not worse than not strictly following dietary laws. Reform and other more liberal sects, reject the male male sex prohibition meaning completely. No matter its exact meaning, its HISTORICAL consequences have been huge. Not only because Christianity has run with that male male sexual prohibition meaning for two thousand years, but also Jewish communities. The Orthodox community in NYC has been one of the loudest and most strident in regard to rejecting gay rights of all kinds and tend to force out those of their communities who seek to live openly gay lives. I would hope that r97s reading would be more widely accepted, but at the moment it is not a mainstream Jewish reading of this passage, at least for the Orthodox.

[quote]most Jewish sages have held that the meaning of this passage is prohibition of male homosexual activity.

R99 again discounts the great influence of living in someone else's country on Rabbinic responsa. If "most Jewish sages" held that ויקרא meant no homosex, homosexuality would be illegal in Israel. It ain't.

Maimonides provided an opinion. Accept it or don't accept it. Free will, remember? Rabbinic responsa is NOT the same as the diktats of a priest or the Church, especially in a nation that was dispersed and in exile for almost 2,000 years.

"Orthodox", "Conservative" and "Reform" are Xtian terms that have zip to due with Jews, Jewish law or the nation of Israel. Most Diaspora communities know far more about the nations they live in than there own.

And just between you, me and whatever government agency is reading this R99, you would be surprised at how many of what you term "Orthodox" rabbis don't speak or understand Hebrew or its nuances.

Vis-a-vis "Orthodox" gays, there are many groups and forums, both inside and outside of Israel, for gay Jews who wish to continue to lead an "Orthodox" life, and not all "Orthodox" communities are censorious of their gay sons and daughters. The community is also making strides in its re-evaluation of ויקרא . The בית דין רבנות for decades would not allow women to appear before them as court advocates. Now they do, because there was no Halachic or Rabbinic reason not to. Correctly interpreting ויקרא is not far behind. Jews are back home together and a thriving nation again. All of the anomalies and pandering to foreign sensibilities in Jewish law will be straightened out. 'עם עזרת ה

[quote]However, I don't know where [R93] obtain the "word for word" translation cited for ויקרא 18:22 but it's wrong.

One is from the Hebrew tab on BibleHub, linked:

R97, and another is from Religious Tolerance, linked:

I collated these with a few other sources, 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 (there's that word again ;)) "𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 𝑀𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑌𝑜𝑢 𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑁𝑜𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐿𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑊𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑛": 𝑂𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑆𝑖𝑔𝑛𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑠 18:22 𝑎𝑛𝑑 20:13, by Saul M. Olyan, at JSTOR. There is considerable ambiguity as to exactly what is being prohibited, with any number of readings possible. One would be, 'You shall not lie with a man in the bed of a woman', prohibiting either sexual relations with a man who is wedded to a woman, or more literally, in the sleeping chamber/space belonging to a woman.

I consider the passage the literal articulation of halakhic meditations upon other passages of scripture which were focusing upon non-Yahweh-exclusive forms of worship, and upon idols. For any of several reasons it should not pertain to modern religious practices, particularly Christian.

Pay little attention to the Old Testament. In fact read the New Testament first and focus on what Jesus himself said and taught. That is the real Christianity.

[quote]focus on what Jesus himself said and taught. That is the real Christianity.

R103: Like the gem I mentioned in R22?

More of what "Jesus himself said and taught": Matthew 18:17 is fraught with 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑖¹ menace: "And if he fails to listen to them, tell it to the Church. And if he fails to listen to even to the Church, let him be to you as the foreigner and the tax collector" - that is, anathema, or damned. (The casual hostility towards foreigners is breathtaking; little wonder the Christian world was historically murderous towards any who were different.) "In his anger, his master turned him over to the torturers, until he should repay all that he owed" (Matthew 18:34) reflects how normative torture was for the society which produced the gospel narrative.

Those who like to claim that "Jesus" is the benign heart of Real Christianity™ really haven't examined the teachings up close, or they're being selective about them.

¹ Parabalani - 'Church police'; thugs who served as ecclesiastical enforcers or handlers, enforcing the will of the bishops, up until around the 7th century.

Well, Jesus experienced discovery along His journey. He revisited and revised as needed as noted in the story of the Gentile woman who knew she'd be healed of her affliction just by touching the hem of His garment. "Even a Master is kind to His dogs by throwing them scraps." It was then that He realized His mission and ministry applied to ALL people. It was a nice way of letting everyone know that everyone is worthy of the gift.

any one who believes that the teaching of this con artist jesus christ is good is simply deluded.

R100 I for one still find you HIGHLY annoying.

[quote]Well, Jesus experienced discovery along His journey. He revisited and revised as needed as noted in the story of the Gentile woman who knew she'd be healed of her affliction just by touching the hem of His garment.

Wait, R105 - you're not seriously attributing the editorial differences between the account of the Syrophoenician woman at Mark 7:24-30 and that of the Canaanite woman of Matthew 15:21-28 to 𝐽𝑒𝑠𝑢𝑠 having changed his mind, are you? 'Jesus' didn't write or review these accounts, you know. The Markan account was the original, a transvaluation of the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath in 1 Kings 17:8-16, and the Matthean author, copying some 95% of the text of 'Mark' into his own composition, made changes to it for his own reasons. Nor was it done in order to offer a 'compare/contrast' opportunity between the two documents; the latter ('Matthew') was composed with the intent of supplanting the earlier ('Mark'), which was never meant to be used again. None of these biblical authors anticipated a situation where a group of texts reflecting an entire range of eclectic opinions and different readings would be collected together in one place (i.e. a 𝑏𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒), where a reader would be offered a 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑖𝑐𝑒 (Greek ℎ𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠, the basis for the term ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑦) on which reading to emphasize or otherwise harmonize with a conflicting one.

For the theologians who wrote these two differing pericopes, it may well have been the case that the 'ethnic' woman didn't matter; the heart of the passage was in the insult Jesus was depicted as calling her - 𝑘𝑢𝑛𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑛, a diminutive of 'dogs' which can be understood to essentially mean, "little bitches." As potentially racist and misogynistic as this might seem on the surface (and that is indeed the surface meaning of it, despite how apologists try to spin it), there was a second meaning to it in that it was an oblique swipe at the 𝐶𝑦𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑠, a Greek philosophical sect (from the Greek 𝑘𝑦𝑛𝑖𝑘𝑜𝑠, 'dog-like') and competitor to the sect of the Christians. This was the esoteric subtext to the passage in both gospels.

R107 And I find you sad. A member of a conquered and assimilated nation. Who must dilute to meaninglessness his laws, language and identity so as not to offend those who decide his existence.

Jesus had pretty friends. I’m just saying most probably won’t be hanging out with Jesus anyway. Sorry🙁

remember also that the whole love your neighbor schtick truly a front to bring more people into the cult by appearing kind and loving to others by in truth is just hypocresy.

הֶן-עָם לְבָדָד יִשְׁכֹּן, וּבַגּוֹיִם לֹא יִתְחַשָּׁב

Poisoned Dragon - I am interested to know - With all your superior knowledge on the subject - What conclusions have you drawn about organized religion in general, and Christianity and Judaism specifically?

- R105

[quote] With all your superior knowledge on the subject

I suspect there's probably more than a whiff of contempt or sarcasm behind your quoted statement. That's okay - I'll answer anyway.

I don't think it's all that. It's information anyone sufficiently interested and motivated can obtain. In the middle 1990s, I ceased studying with the object being defense of the religion, and began analyzing it critically. Across the next few years, I transitioned from skeptic, to atheist, and finally to anti-theist. You'd be surprised what you'll learn once you're no longer buying what the preachers and theologians are selling.

[quote]What conclusions have you drawn about organized religion in general, and Christianity and Judaism specifically?

That none of it is real, nor is any of it necessary to live an ethical life considerate of others. That it's a crutch, a form of false security that people are raised with from childhood, with few incentives to give it up. As I've said here before, it's like Santa Claus for adults. 'He's making a list / Checking it twice / Gonna find out who's naughty or nice / Santa Claus is coming to town.' If an adult continued to believe the myth of Santa Claus, one would consider them impaired in some way, delusional. The claims of the Abrahamic religions are like that, but they're given a pass, mostly because the delusions are so widely shared. It's harmful, both to those afflicted and to others.

Christianity has been more harmful than the other two Abrahamic faiths combined. It's still killing today.

OP, you’ve created a straw man argument. Most people understand the concept of “neighbor”. Especially in Nazareth, c. 30 A.D.

No contempt. No sarcasm. I was genuinely interested in your replies to my questions, R114, as a consequence of me being someone who likely will not change your perspective, and you being someone who could never change mine. Nevertheless, I think what we experience the world over via organized religion is mankind's misguided attempt to define the indefinable - at least down to the minutest details, as he has done. Furthermore, he has capitalized on religion to mold and shape it to his own benefit - like everything else. And just like everything else that man gets hold of - it becomes corrupted as man himself is corrupted. By my best estimation it's man who causes all the confusion as well as faithlessness. He has made a deep and abiding faith in God something of an unobtainable goal through the placement of so many restrictions to that faith - unobtainable for many. So then, we have organized religion which is a man made construct, and we have God which does in fact live. There is a whole lot more to the story - the explanation. The answer could be a simple as taking a straight line from point A to point B, whereas mankind has gone all over the map, unnecessarily, to get from A to B. Thank God for Martin Luther!

R113 and R105

[quote]Thank God for Martin Luther!

Thank God for Martin "On the Jews and Their Lies" Luther? Really, R116?

C ya, PD - I'm out, brotha!

R116

Why would any sane person follow the teachings of Christ? I mean, who would want to help the poor, shelter the homeless, and love his neighbor? Ridiculous.

[quote]Why would any sane person follow the teachings of Christ? I mean, who would want to help the poor, shelter the homeless, and love his neighbor? Ridiculous.

Certainly not Republicans, that's for sure.

In the "teachings of Christ," R119, there is no mandate to "shelter the homeless." Jesus is depicted as apparently speaking of himself, "Foxes have dens and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head" (Matt.8:20, Lk.9:58), as a sort of Cynic boast of mendicancy. Many such sayings like "love your enemies" and "give to any who asks" were borrowed from the Cynics, and taken over as 'Jesus' sayings.

As noted above in this thread, 'Love your neighbor' is from the Torah, appropriated by Christians as a 'Jesus' saying, and regarded by many as originating with him.

Christian teaching on the poor is a bit more complicated. In order to join the sect of the Christians, one was expected to sell all one owned and give it to the Church to dispense as it saw fit. The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 depicting what the Church felt should happen to those who didn't hand it all over, is a scare story about how a couple held back part of the money and did not give it to the Church, and God struck them dead, a Christian analogue to the story of Achan, in Joshua 7. In the OT narrative, though, the congregation carried out the sentence, stoning the offenders (selected by lot); the NT depicts God as doing it. But the plain fact is that 𝑖𝑓 anyone was penalized or killed, it would have been leaders of the congregation who ordered it, and congregants who carried it out. (Think: If this happened today, and a couple were carried out dead from a church, there would be a police investigation; "Goddidit" would not be an acceptable answer, and rightly so. There's no such thing as supernatural penalties. Somebody, or several somebodies, would be going to prison.) And this story was designed to be a further incentive to giving over e̲v̲e̲r̲y̲t̲h̲i̲n̲g̲, in addition to the promise that one would secure entry to heaven through doing so. This was how the Church swiftly grew into the wealthiest, most propertied entity in Western civilization. And how they quickly tired of using the accumulated wealth for the benefit of everyone is perhaps best reflected in another NT passage, Jesus' glib reply, "The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them whenever you want. But you will not always have Me" (Mark 14:7; Matt.26:11; John 12:8), a perverse reversal of Deuteronomy 15:11. Indeed, the suggestion of selling or setting aside for the poor came under suspicion as insincere, and became part of the scapegoating of Judas, the gospel character made synecdochical for all Jews (John 12:5,6).

[quote]C ya, PD - I'm out, brotha!

R118 - I take it you had no idea that Martin Luther was a notorious antisemite.

Yo Semite.

Whaddya want, R121, ya pesky varmint!

[quote]OP, you’ve created a straw man argument. Most people understand the concept of “neighbor”. Especially in Nazareth, c. 30 A.D.

R115/Xavier, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

Oh great. Another thread of pronouncements of truth from Poisoned Dragon. So much misinformation.

[quote]So much misinformation.

▲ So much butthurt. You talk like you've read the thread. But you haven't. It's just a personal, petty grudge with you.

[quote] You talk like you've read the thread. But you haven't.

Completely untrue. But not knowing something never stops you from stating it as certain fact.

[quote]Completely untrue. But not knowing something never stops you from stating it as certain fact.

Like you did at R115 with the 'Xavier' sock?

Like that I am a sock of Xavier. Untrue, but because it fits your delusional story you believe it regardless of complete and utter absence of facts.

You're pursuing a grudge, R128; that's a fact. As demonstrated in other threads, you use sock accounts to back yourself up. That's a fact. You've never had any counter-arguments that weren't fallacious; that too is a fact.

Something else that's a fact is that I'm not interested in your petty vengeance games. Find something relevant to discuss, preferably amicably. If you can't do that, then FO.

[quote] You're pursuing a grudge, [R128]; that's a fact.

Sure isn't.

[quote] As demonstrated in other threads, you use sock accounts to back yourself up. That's a fact.

Nowhere demonstrated...because it isn't true.

[quote] You've never had any counter-arguments that weren't fallacious; that too is a fact.

No that's your opinion. The opinion of a true believer who only seeks out sources that support your already existing positions and refuses to do the least bit of self-examination.

[quote] Something else that's a fact is that I'm not interested in your petty vengeance games. Find something relevant to discuss, preferably amicably. If you can't do that, then FO.

I really don't care what you are interested in and you have no power over where I discuss what I want to discuss.

In fact I don't care the least little thing about you. The only reason I post in these threads where you try to spread your disinformation is to warn the other readers to take everything you post with a giant grain of salt and do their own research. I never try to say I have all the answers. Just that your answers are sometimes extremely fringe and sometimes all together wrong.

The moment I referenced R115's baiting post, which stood ignored for two days, it drew you like a magnet, immediately. You were waiting for a response to it.

The certitude you always evince in insisting I'm wrong, that I spread 'disinformation' that warrants warning against, testifies against you.

[quote] The moment I referenced [R115]'s baiting post, which stood ignored for two days, it drew you like a magnet, immediately. You were waiting for a response to it.

Nope. Just came across this thread today. You just keep making shit up.

I don't know why suggesting people should do a check of your absolute pronouncements of truth testifies against me.

[quote]Nope. Just came across this thread today. You just keep making shit up.

It was within a couple of 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠.

[quote]I don't know why suggesting people should do a check of your absolute pronouncements of truth testifies against me.

That response typifies your saturated dishonesty; that isn't what I said 'testifies against you.'

Projection; you hypocritically attack my purported 'absolute pronouncements of truth' with your own claims to certainty.

I'm afraid your time's up; I'm not going to argue with you anymore unless you pay for another session. ;)

[quote]Especially in Nazareth, c. 30 A.D.

'Nazareth' didn't exist in 30 CE, R115.

[quote] It was within a couple of 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠.

Doesn't make it any less true.

[quote] That response typifies your saturated dishonesty; that isn't what I said 'testifies against you.'

I still have no idea what testifies against me.

[quote] Projection; you hypocritically attack my purported 'absolute pronouncements of truth' with your own claims to certainty.

That's pure projection. What did I claim to be certain about?

[quote] I'm afraid your time's up

You don't determine that.

[quote] I'm not going to argue with you anymore unless you pay for another session. ;)

Yeah, I'm not actually having an argument with you. And I have no need of any "session." Cram your cutesy.

Counterpoint to r134.

[quote] love your NEIGHBOR, like yourself

That is what they like to say, but what they believe is love your NEIGHBOR, like yourself but only if they are Christian like you and only the good type of Christian. They can't be a gay Christian, or have liberal political leanings, they can't be a good Christian if they believe a woman has a right to choice, or if you don't go to the right Christian church.

Counterpoint to R136:

And more on the "Nazareth existed" side.

R139, that's rather 'less' on the 'Nazareth existed' side. You're counting links, rather than taking stock of the actual arguments contained therein. The ones you're offering are deficient.

[quote]You don't determine that... I'm not actually having an argument with you. And I have no need of any "session." Cram your cutesy.

Oh, you poor, humorless thing. That was with reference to the link in R123, Monty Python's Argument Clinic.

[quote] You're counting links

No, I'm not.

[quote] The ones you're offering are deficient

Your opinion. I'm only pointing out that the "Nazareth Doesn't Exist" links are not the only option.

[quote] Oh, you poor, humorless thing. That was with reference to the link in [R123], Monty Python's Argument Clinic.

Still cutesy crap from someone who continues to accuse me of things I haven't done or haven't said. Not really interested in your "joshing" after that.

[quote] I'm only pointing out that the "Nazareth Doesn't Exist" links are not the only option.

You're still focusing only on the links, despite claiming that isn't what you're doing. It's the evidence and arguments being offered, which you're studiously ignoring. You cannot offer 'options' to something you haven't read or evaluated. If you had, you'd know that many of the claims you're linking to have already been answered.

[quote]Still cutesy crap from someone who continues to accuse me of things I haven't done or haven't said. Not really interested in your "joshing" after that.

Your hostility is palpable and undeniable. And this is how you've been since we first started interacting nearly two years ago. And it always comes back to the existence of Jesus, for which you've never been able to produce any evidence; the post at R115 was another glove laid down in that ongoing issue. It wasn't even the subject of this thread, and still isn't, as far as I'm concerned.

Thank you, R139. That’s beautiful.

Xavier, you'd best put that in a vase with some water before it wilts.

PoisonedDragon,

I am not a puppet, sock-type or otherwise, as you seem to refer to in R127. I am a real human with real feelings who posts about my real personal beliefs as a Christian Gay man. Please leave the ad hominem attacks and other nonsense outside, eh?

R145, a real human with real feelings and real beliefs, and real socks. I haven't 'ad hominem'ed you.

If you can't handle a little pushback on your claims, then don't throw out challenges like R115.

How do you reconcile your claim that "most people understand the concept of “neighbor”" with Matthew 18:17, which I discussed a little at R104? Apparently foreigners and tax collectors didn't count as 'neighbors.'

Answer for yourself, and not with the 'sock.'

Christianity is the most welcoming to outsiders compared to the other two Abrahamic religions.

A non-Christian can become a Christian overnight if they wanted to. Good luck converting to Judaism or Islam without having to go through several hoops and/or sacrificing parts of your identity.

[quote] Christianity is the most welcoming to outsiders compared to the other two Abrahamic religions.

A claim coming from an ethnic and cultural insider, R147.

[quote]A non-Christian can become a Christian overnight if they wanted to.

It's easiest for someone raised in Western culture, suffused as it is with Christian concepts. For one such, it can be as simple as accompanying your grandmother to church, going to the front during the altar call, praying the so-called 'sinner's prayer,' and scheduling a baptism. Within the Catholic communion, there are a few more steps, I think.

But none of this is quite that simple for a true outsider, someone raised in another culture or religion, with a foreign ethnicity or language. Neither is it easy for the Christians to fully embrace and accept someone that different; there's... conditions to be met. The rest of the hurdles aside, it depends upon how willing the outsider is to shed his or her former customs and beliefs, and fully replace them with Christianity and the cultural memes of the congregation in question. Until and unless they fully do this, the acceptance wanes to a lesser or greater degree.

My uncle and aunt on my Dad's side were Charismatic Baptists, and adopted several Asian children, part of the refugee 'Boat People' during the early 1980s. Along with subjecting them to a crash course in cultural replacement and in Christian fundamentalist indoctrination, ultimately they were even made to give up their original names and adopt English Christian monikers like 'John.'

r148 Interesting anecdote about your fundie aunt and uncle. I wonder how those adult adopted children are doing today and if not growing up as a refugee really fucked them up?

PoisonedDragon is just here to argue. That’s his purpose in life, apparently.

R149, I have no idea. I cut off all contact with my dad back in 1990, over something so incredible I doubt anyone here would believe it. Subsequent encounters with the extended family on that side have tended to reinforce the estrangement.

Sometime in the middle 90s, I was dining with my brother and a friend at a restaurant midway between where I live and the city where my uncle and aunt resided (some thirty-five miles between us). I was approached by a tall, thin Asian man in his late teens, perhaps early twenties, who addressed me by my name, and told me his name was John. He pointed to the other side of the restaurant, where my uncle, aunt and cousins waved to me. Somewhat reluctantly, I went over and exchanged greetings. 'John,' as it turned out, was my adopted cousin formerly named Vu (pronounced 'Vo') who, last I'd seen him, was tiny, and once looked for all the world like 'Short Round' in 'Temple of Doom' (1984). I would never have recognized him at this point. It was then that I discovered that all of the adoptees had been anglicized.

The exchange was brief and awkward. My aunt said that my dad had told them I was gay, and she wanted to know if the guy seated with me was my boyfriend. (He was not; that would never have been possible, even if he hadn't been straight. Just not that kind of friend.) This was a lot to process in just a few seconds; I was deeply flustered. In the mid-90s, although I had accepted that I was gay, I wasn't out to anyone besides my brother and the friend I was with - and I certainly hadn't made such an admission to my dad. She asked me if I was aware that homosexuality was against God's will. Avoiding responding to this statement, I kept the rest of the tense exchange brief, and somewhat curt, and went back to my table. That was the last time I had contact with them.

In 1998, when my mom died, I received a phone call out of the blue from a different aunt in Oklahoma, married to another of my dad's brothers, the Southern Baptist preacher. My mom's obituary had run in the newspaper, you see, and this aunt's sister had seen it and notified her. My uncle then called the listed funeral home, and under the pretense of being the family minister, obtained my telephone number. And so here she was. She too had several questions, along with some statements intended to guilt me.* "Are you happy?" I told her that, apart from my mom's recent death, that yes, I was reasonably happy. "Do you have a boyfriend?" Yes, there's someone, I told her. "Which one of you is the wife?" she asked. I froze, appalled, debating what my reaction should be. I held the receiver somewhat away from my head, staring at it, and in a snap decision, hung it up.

She rang back immediately. I picked up and told her to lose my telephone number and never to call me again. None of them ever have since, and I'm fine with that.

* "Your grandmother misses you," she told me. Grandma [name redacted] was in her nineties, and no longer able to live on her own. She then resided with her son, the preacher and his wife. "She asks about you all the time, and we just don't know what to tell her about you." This was the passive-aggressive segue into the questions.

[quote]PoisonedDragon is just here to argue. That’s his purpose in life, apparently.

You're just bitter, Xavier. Have a cup of hot tea and relax.

It's always interesting to trace the path of immigrants to NYC. Jews started in the Lower East Side, then Williamsburg and Bushwick, then Flatbush and then out to Long Island, particularly the 5 towns. Italians started out in Little Italy, Brooklyn, Bensonhurst, then Staten Island and far reaches of the Bronx. Chinese started out in Chinatown, then spread into Little Italy and the Bowery, and have now migrated out to Flushing. Some of the Brooklyn mob families, like the Lucchese crime family, the Gambinos, and the Colombos are now well-established on Staten Island and some of the biggest mob hits of recent years have taken place there.

whoops, wrong thread ^^^^