Why isn't it pure?  Maybe it comes down to the answer to why are we here?  What is your purpose in life?  How did you get here and where are you going?  My answers would all be God centered.  He's the end all to a Christian.  It's about Him, not us.   I do agree tho with your last statement.  When we do good we are honoring our creator. 

Well I can tell you it's definitely not fear based.  When we come to Christ in the first place sometimes it can be out of fear.  We don't wish to go to hell.  Mind you this is the avenue some take to accepting Christ.   Fear meaning not wanting to pay the consequences for sin.  But once you've had the relationship with Christ for a while and you've grown in it it's no longer fear but love.  Scripture says "love casts out all fear."  We are not bound by fear but love. 

So we do what we do out of love not out of fear.  But having said that, we do wish to hear "well done good and faithful servant."  So although I do what I do for the cause of Christ and his benefit I also do want to hear my creator say those words to me someday.  But I don't do what I do for praise either.  It really is love motivated, not fear or praise motivated. 

all the Christian principles/virtues are based on love.  Humility, virtue, integrity, patience, kindness, genteness, faith, truth.  It's not to show off how good we are, but to show others how Good our God is. 

It can be summed up with the two greatest commandments which we've covered. I think the OT prophet covered it when he wrote this:

"With what shall I come before the Lord and bow down before the exalted God?  Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old?  Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil?  Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?  He has showed you O man what is good.  And what does the Lord require of you?

TO ACT JUSTLY AND TO LOVE MERCY AND TO WALK HUMBLY WITH YOUR GOD."   Micah 6:8

 

 

"Nightshades, I'm sorry but I can't really discuss anymore with you I find you very hard to speak with. It's like you're out to nitpick everything I say instead of listening to what I say. I don't have that feeling with Sodaiho. Even tho we disagree I feel he's at least listening."

I do listen or else I could not respond. You simply don't like the fact that I prove you wrong and with scripture. I'm taking away your authority. Sodaiho doesn't do that, he makes you feel like you are still in control I understand however, and quite frankly I am quite surprised that you've lasted it out this long. Your actions whether you know it or not were more than expected by me. You act from "self", and the actions of self are the same with everyone. It's always out to defend itself. It's that way with everyone so really you aren't any different than anyone else. I don't take it personally, I am simply the messenger, and it's never about the messenger, so you don't need to be sorry.

Christian principles are Christ based in that they come from Him, His teachings and Model. What constitutes Christianity is love of God amongst men. Christian principles magnify God and His love.

 

Thank you both, Lula and KFC, for these lists and sources. These maxims, values, virtues, etc., however, are common among religions. I am getting the sense that such principles are made Christian by virtue of the fact that they were taught by the authors of the Hebrew scripture and recapped by Jesus. 

Purity of motive, however, is important, I think.  While, on the one hand, it is good to be good to please God, pleasing God, in such a context becomes something added to the equation. It makes moral behavior something contingent.  

If we say, "its all God" then how is that fundamentally different from saying we are virtuous because virtuosity is an aspect of God and by being virtuous, surrendering our selfishness to Godliness we are allowing God to manifest in (or through) us? 

I think Christians get stuck obsessing about ownership. Perhaps theologically they must?  Rather than understanding the various ways/aspects of God being made manifest through differing understandings of Him.

 

A list of virtues or values such as the Six Perfections in Zen Buddhism (generosity, morality, diligence, patience, meditation, and wisdom) , or a core virtue in Christianity such as "love" have corresponding places in all religions I am aware of.  What often changes in their relative axiologic rank. In Buddhism, the core value of compassion is much like (arguably the very same thing as) Christian love. In both cases it is the selfless manifestation of either God or Buddha-nature.

I would think all religious adherrants would be happy that people would manifest such values and principles in the world rather than getting caught in the need to say one ownwership is somehow better, different, or holier than another.

 

Lastly, secular virtue is virtue regardless of its source. Secular people, humanists, atheists, agnostics, can be (and often are) very virtuous. Love, sacrifice, generosity, patience, tolerance, these exist apoart from any religious source. They exist because we human beings have evolved to include them through natural selection: they are beneficial to the species.

 

Be well.   

 

Another point.  In Judaism we often speak as if God needs our praise.  I really don't think this is true, although a case can be made that Man and God need each other and are in symbiotic relationship.  I do think that if it were the case, it doesn't speak well of God and says far more about our ability to understand Him than His actuality itself.

Yes I agree and I said as much on one of my recent blog asking if you can have morality without religion citing that all the major religions have commonality when it comes to moral things.



well I'm not so sure we say he "needs" our praise so much as God desires our praise. When we praise God it's sort of like the birds singing. They sing because they were made to sing. It's natural for them to do so. We praise God for that was what we were made to do in the beginning before sin got us all messed up. When Christ came into my life, my eyes were opened to this and I got it. I never got it before then. It made sense like never before.

Yes, I agree and this commonality comes from these facts:

The end of a thing is the purpose for which it was made. Mankind was made for God to know Him, love Him and to serve Him in this world and be with Him in the next. Christianity serves this purpose of helping man to his end.

Even more universal is what's 100% common amongst all mankind...that we are all created by God; all made in His image and likeness in that we all have an eternal soul that will never die.


First, we are all stamped by the handiwork of God when we were created with an inner sense of moral obligation and His laws written upon our heart. And second, every obligation demands a sufficient sanction. Thirdly, Every one of us has an natural desire for lasting happiness. No earthly or temporal good can satisfy this hunger and this innate tendency cannot lack its rightful object.



Let's discuss Christ's teachings on the Ten COmmandments for both Judaism and Christianity teach that they are the laws of GOd and both place obedience to them at the heart of religion.

But the differences between the two religions in their appraoch to the Ten Commandments are far from minor. Christ revealed that certain items in the commandments weren't being understood correctly. "Remember to keep Holy the Sabbath".....the Jews were paying too much attention to man-made hyper strict rules of rest on the Sabbath and not enough to the point that the command is to keep the Sabbath holy to worship on that day, to hear the word of God on that day.

Next, the Jews told themselves that divorce and remarriage does not count as adultery and Christ taught that this was mistaken. Read St.Matt.19:1-9.

Before Christ, the Jews had no clear ideas whether the Ten Commandments applied to pagans. Christ taught that they are universal in that they have these laws written on their hearts. So, these commandments regulate non-believers as well. They aren't excused from obeying the TC just becasue they've never read the Holy BIble, nor effectively heard of any of Christ's teachings in the practice of Christianity. No, all unbelievers know that stealing, adultery, mugging, fornication, murder, meaness, are wrong, even though the worldlings try desperately to believe they do not, as a way of supporting their own false claims of ignorance of their own wrongdoing.

Very nice, KFC. Nice use of mythic structure. (I mean that in a very positive sense as myth is what we use ti make sense of our world.)   However, if sin messed us up, as you say, then our creator was far from perfect...or likes a good drama...and on top of all that is a praise addict. I suspect sin is a product of a point of view.  A product of a discriminating mind. In other words, a human creation.

Be well.

SODAIHO POSTS:

There is no doubt whatsoever that some in the secular world love, are generous, patient, kind etc.

It's equally true that these very same people never will identify some central offenses against God's law as wrong. We cannot count on them to know or follow what is right becasue they are not committed to Absolute Goodness.

 

On this you or Jesus is clearly mistaken. The sabbath is honored by Jews through a cessation of work, but also, and most importantly, study and prayer. We step out of time on Shabbat. We become one with God on Shabbat. Besides, its not the Jews, but the Torah itself that spells out the rules.  The ten commandments are but an executive summary of the 613. 

As to divorce, the Torah is clear that it allows divorce, eh, that would be God's word.  However, there is an interesting discussion on Matthew's take on it here:

http://www.moshereiss.org/christianity/06_mathew/06_mathew.htm

 

See ya.

Regards 360: See Lula, I tell ya we are getting just a little closer.  Be well.

nightshades posts: #338

Excuse me, but we certainly don't legislate sin all the time. This is a gross misstatement. I, and I think KFC as well, are very discriminating as to whom we vote for public office (who are the ones actually doing the legislating). I will not vote for anyone who sanctions or condones homosexuality in any way, shape or form.



Since you brought up legislating sin followed by this...

While you may not, both KFC and I believe (becasue the Holy Bible tells us so) that homosexuality is not a part of God's plan. Almighty God made us according to His plan. Heterosexuality describes the way all human beings are designed to function as compatible opposite-sex partners. The body parts fit to perpetuate the human race. That's why marriage is closed to those practicing same-sex genital sex. It's an institution designed to protect and strengthen the natural family which is rooted in the pro-creative heterosexual design we all share.

Our legislators have only the right to legislate against sexual conduct if it threatens the public health and that is certainly what homosexuality does.



The Old Testament is replete with prohibitions against the practice of sexual sins including homosexuality. Catholics certainly understand that the Commandment, "You shall not commit adultery" forbids not just adultery, but fornication, sodomy, and bestiality.

The link you provided Sodaiho is an excellent one. I found it fascinating reading.

"I will not vote for anyone who sanctions or condones homosexuality in any way, shape or form"

I wasn't speaking of the sin of homosexuality. I was speaking of sin in general. May I remind you that this country is at war? The 10 commandments strictly prohibit killing of another for any reason. "Thou shalt not kill." There are no exception clauses to this statement. It doesn't read "thou shalt not kill except in the case of being bombed." We did elect these men to office, and we have continued to do so over the past 6 years. That is legislating sin. So what is the difference.

I didn't say that it wasn't a sin. I said that their sin is between god and them. That it is not for anyone to judge except God. It is not however for us to legislate laws to keep us from sinning, because in truth, that doesn't stop sinning at all. These people will sin never the less. However marriage, while you may think that it is a "sanctified act", is not particular to either the jewish or christian histories, it's been going on in all civilizations for all time. They are not asking to get married in the church. As Americans however they are entitled to equal treatment under the law. You chanting "sin" is simply your taking away their civil rights.

"Our legislators have only the right to legislate against sexual conduct if it threatens the public health and that is certainly what homosexuality does."

HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases are growing faster in the heterosexual community than in the homosexual community. Should we also pass a law against their sexual conduct? I mean right now it's a far bigger danger to public health. The HIV virus came from Africa and science states that they have traced the disease back to a monkey bite that a woman nursed along with her infant. The homosexual man happened to be the one person that we found out about first. She was the first to contract the disease, and obviously she was heterosexual.

What I was trying to indicate when I brought up the fact that it wasn't in the Ten Commandments was that you seem select that which you wish to select from the hebrew faith, also to make the point that Jesus was jewish, it was not ever his intention to start a new faith called christianity.

No, they don't.

The "ten commandments" speak of "murder", not "killing".

The Bible knows of the death penalty and doesn't prohibit it. Which Bible did you read that said "do not kill for any reason"?

Older translations translate with "kill", newer translations use "murder" or "put to death without cause". However, killing a terrorist who is trying to blow up a mosque or murder a child in front if his parents eyes is not "without cause" and certainly not "murder". And neither is an execution or fighting a war against a power that gases minority groups (Kurds) and regularly starts wars with surrounding countries (Iran, Kuwait, Israel).

Nightshades, I think I see KFC's point. It is difficult to discuss this with you. I also don't see how you "prove [her] wrong" and use "scripture" to do so.

You are right that only G-d may judge sins that affect no other human being (without consent).

But unless you start quoting correctly (it's difficult to read your comments) and learn the difference between murder and killing (the Bible does at no point say that fighting a war PER SE is a sin), I don't see the point of the discussion.

Actually, it forbids just adultery; and for women only. Men could not commit adultery since they could marry (have) as many women as they wanted.

(For men there is a separate law regarding use of the neighbour's wife.)

Bestiality and other sexual practices are outlawed by the Noahide laws and they apply to EVERYONE, not just Jews. However, whether the forbidden practices include lived homosexuality is not my decision to make.

Exodus 20 verse 13

"Thou shalt not kill" No exception clauses.

The bible I am quoting this from is the New American Catholic bible approved by Pope Pius XII.

I am very much aware that newer bibles say murder. Man however is quite often in the habit of rewriting the bible, amongst other books, to suit his needs. The bible is for me a reference only book. I am not a christian or a jew, or a muslim, nor am I of any faith. I've stated here before that I am simply a follower of the truth, and there is no religion higher than the truth. I don't take on faith the truth from any book, including the bible. I find it out for myself. The only thing that I do take on faith is THE I AM, because I have seen evidence of THE I AM's existance. All else is knowable. I use the bible for reference when I speak to christians because that is what they believe and understand. I personally have no beliefs. Belief is not knowledge.

Genesis chapter 9 verses 5-6

"For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man. At the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man.

Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God."


This is also a prohibition against killing commanded by God. And it comes far earlier than the ten commandments do. This is "god" speaking, where as the 10 commandments are the words of the "Lord God". One is not the same as the other. That is not to say that the "Lord God" is not of "God". There are three principles spoken of in the bible. "God", the "Lord God" and the "Lord". The two are not the same as the one, but they are of the one. God created the all. God is THE I AM, the true creator.

The "Lord God" recreated the earth, and all that is on it. The lord god created for him a life of the physical(not the flesh, but the spirit or soul if you will), the human form, called his name and trapped his attention in it, futher reinforcing the trapping by having him name all life on the earth. The "Lord God" did not trap the attention of the female principle. The "Lord God" had to recreate a facsimile of the female principle because man would have recalled that the female principle was missing and that would have meant that he would also have recalled his original creator, once he had recalled both he would have also recalled the original creation, and his attention would no longer remain trapped. There is in fact no female principle dwelling on the earth and never has been. All humans are the male principle. What we percieve as a sexual difference is illusion and nothing more. the evidence of this fact is that the "Lord God" caused a deep sleep to fall over Adam, (in other words made him forget) and took from Adam his rib and made for him a companion. Upon awakening Adam said "This now is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man". "And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him. Male and female he created them" taken from the first story of creation. One was not taken from the other.

The male principle is the postive or creative principle, female the negative, or the destructive, or breaking down principle. The two creations spoken of in Genesis are literally two seperate creations. One is not simply the retelling of the other.

What do you mean "newer bibles"? The Bible says "do not murder". Older translations, like the one you read, say "do not kill". Newer translations (not "newer bibles") say "do not murder".



Is that how you rewrote "murder" to "kill"?

How can you be so aware of the dangers of rewriting the Bible and then do it anyway and openly?




None of that excuses your misreading of the text. You don't have to be a Christian, or Jew, or Muslim to know the difference between "murder" and "kill" and the difference between "new" and "old".

Again:

Bible: "do not murder"
Old translation: "do not kill"
New translation: "do not murder"

The new translation is "new", but it is closer to the original text.

If you want to quote the Bible, go ahead; but don't claim that your preferred translation is the "old" Bible while other translations (and the original text in Hebrew) are the "new" Bible.

Read it again. It's not a prohibition against killing, it is a permission to kill (execute) a murderer.

I think you are the first person I have ever encountered who reads "his blood shall be shed" as a prohibition against killing!

The point is that killing of another if forbidden, and war by it's very nature is killing. The reason for doing so is no excuse. I also realize that the Lord God said in "Justice", "He that striketh a man with a will to kill him, shall be put to death." Man has mistakenly believed that that was his duty to perform. It is not. It is a sentence that is to be carried out by God alone, whether it be in this incarnation or the next. Many say that sometimes the innocent are murdered. That is man's reasoning and it's faulty, God does not allow for the death of anyone who is innocent. This is also the reason why Jesus did not "heal" everyone that he came across. Karma is a teaching tool of God's, (what one does unto the world, the world shall do unto him, in other words break the law of god and what you have done will also be done unto you, sooner or later.) What we perceive as the "death of an innocent" is simply our perception and it is inaccurate, because we don't know what sin that person committed in a former life. Jesus by his very act of putting aside self "saw" whether or not anything had been learned through the individuals karma. Those that had come to understand the purpose of the lesson were healed, those that had not, weren't.

Those that say someone has gotten away with murder think that because they have not been tried under man's justice in this lifetime, that they won't be tried nor pay the price. They will, God will make sure of it. Not in heaven, but right here on earth.

I don't need to read it again. No where does it give permission to execute a murderer. You are reading into the words your's or another persons interpretation and addition. If God had wanted it to be perceived in that fashion, God would have stated so.

If we wish to evolve as a species, we must step away from ancient texts and their interpreters which seem to give permission to continue a primitive set of actions.  The Torah does prohibit murder, but it also demands killing under certain circumstances.  Does this mean we should do it?

We must use the Torah, its commentaries, and modern responsa only as guides. Christians are fond of pointing out we should seek the spirit of the law rather than the letter.  They do this in some circumstances better than others, admittedly, but it is, non-the-less, wise advice.

Modern sensibilities have changed, dare I say, evolved, over time.  Our world has become closer, far more tightly knit.  We are much like a family with bickering factions than sets of nations. Those who remain on the outskirts, the fundamentalist, anti-modernists, such as radical Muslims or Ultra-orthodox Jews, or seriously fundamentalist Christians, are not only out of touch with modern sensibilities, but they actually see them as a threat to their old ways.

Spiritual progression must take a Middle Way, a balance between the letter and the spirit. We must be willing to examine and re-examine doctrine, often opting to set it aside when proven wrong by science, for example, or improving conditions of the species, or worsening conditions of the planet's environment.

Our creator endowed us with a mind, with a heart, and with determination. These ought not be at war with each other, but rather, they should be in-service to one another. 

Old myths like the Myth of the Eternal Return, resurrection myths, Adamic Redemptive themes, must be cast in contemporary terms.  Reform Judaism, for example, has revisited the Messiah myth and re-stated it as a "Messianic Age". So, we are not looking for a person, a hero, who will make everything peachy keen, but rather a working together of mankind to create an enlightened world.  

 

Text in such circumstances must be read with different eyes.  Eyes wiling to see text as symbolic expressions of a deep desire to get close to God and to make ourselves Holy.

 

Be well.

May I assume that you never actually read the Bible?

The Bible does not only give permission to execute a murderer but also to execute people for all sorts of lesser crimes.

For example:



It has nothing to do with my "interpretation". The fact that the death penalty is in the Bible is well-known.

In fact that entire section gives you a list of crimes punishable by death.

Did you ever read the Bible?

I agree with you. However, here the question was not "should we do it", but "does the Bible say so".

The Bible forbids murder but not all killing and does allow for a death penalty.

To me that means that we must not murder but can kill in self-defence and could institute a death penalty (but don't have to and probably shouldn't).

But "nightshades"' reading of the Bible (if he ever looked at it in his life) is just wrong. He sees words that don't exist and refuses to accept simple facts. He shows the same attitude towards the Bible as our Catholic friend here does towards the Talmud.

It's not helpful.

 

Sometimes we must allow for each other's deficiencies in order to get to the common good. The problems we have in this form of communication can lead to tons of head butting, each convinced the other is right or wrong. Moreover, as I think I said earlier, its also a problem with text criticism.  We agree, Leauki, that the text we are examining must first be understood in its original language, then we should look at context in terms of an array of areas, cultural, religious, anthropological, etc., then  look at how differing eyes take the context and text and apply it through the ages, forming essentially different religions or certainly sects: a complex, but rewarding task. And not everyone is in the same place at all.  So be it.

 

I seek to find common ground whenever possible, although I admit I am not above giving my own jabs from time to time. Still, we should each look to find value in the dialogue, don't you think?

 

I see us as a Catholic (Lula), a Christian fundamentalist (KFC) , a Jew (Leauki) , a JuBu (myself), and a mystic of sorts (Nightshades), having a discussion mostly about Jesus and Judaism, but also about things much deeper. Others chime in from time to time.  Frankly, I think we're doing pretty well.

See ya!