What makes Christianity special?

[bhsmte]

I have never looked this issue up, because as far as I'm concerned, it does not matter. It is a foolish question and I feel it is only being used to mock God, Christianity, and Christians for being in God and Christianity. Am I wrong? And to answer your question, since I have never taken it upon myself to research this rather off the wall topic before, you might want to read the Taryag Mitzvot to learn more about the rituals and regulations of the Jewish Temple and religion. I have no idea, since I have never researched such an odd topic before, let alone even considered researching it, because as I said, it doesn't matter to me personally, especially from the perspective of eternity. All I know is God had His own laws, rules and regulations regarding the Jewish Temple and religion for His own reasons. None of that applies to me, as a Christian, today. The reasons why God disallowed men with crushed testicles into the Temple may be interesting or even intriguing history of the Jewish religion to some, but it isn't to me. I'm not Jewish, by ethnicity or religion, so none of that really matters in regards to my personal faith and belief in God Himself.

Yes, I believe you are wrong.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Yes, I believe you are wrong.

Of course, you do. You're an atheist.

 

[bhsmte]

Of course, you do. You're an atheist.

You can believe that if it makes you feel better.

 

[stevevw]

Now, if you wouldn't mind, please show me where you (or anybody else) have explained to me in the past why Psalms 139 was chosen to be called "scripture."

I never said that. I said you have been explained several times what this verse was about but you keep repeating it over and over again in the same manner. You keep saying God said this or instructed this. I have said it was an expression of a person who was in anguish. You have also had another explain to you some context but you also choose to ignore this. You are determined to put your own meaning and context to it so there's nothing i can do. I cant keep repeating this so I will have to leave it at that.

Answer me directly, yes or not... would you sing "happy is he who dashes their infants upon the rocks" in church?

It is not telling us to sing it in church. It is about someone else in history. God is not saying to sing this in church and it is not a instructional thing. The person writing it is saying that it is hard for them to sing a song about being in captivity. But the captors are making them do so. The expression in verse 9 is about how the writer felt about the people who killed his family and children and destroyed his city. He is angry and wants the same thing to happen to them. They use to kill the children in war as a way of stopping the enemies children growing up to come and make war against them in the future. This is how they were back then. It was different to now. But you are only looking at it in today's context. They also use to have people fight to the death in stadiums fro entertainment. They also use to crucify people to stakes. They also use to have slaves and sacrifice animals. It was a different time and war was a way of life. Revenge was a way of law and people thought this way. You are seeing things in black and white and dictating how you think it should be like either it was this way or this way and there is no other way but the way I say it has to be.

That is the purpose of Psalms, and we've even seen other posters suggest I chant such vitriol.

No it is not the only purpose of psalms. have you ever research it your self instead of asking someone and then maybe holding perhaps misinformed interpretations to them. If you want to find out something you have to do some research yourself as well. This is the only way you can truly find out for your self. not on behalf of someone else but for yourself. Afterall you would do it with anything else but it seems you dont want to apply this to this subject.

So if there was a Psalm about how the faithful should praise God and keep a sharp sword in their hand so they can execute vengeance... that's just an expression right?

You are the one who is saying they are about this and that. They are not just about praising God. You are trying to restrict them to what you want and what you want to make them for the purpose of making out how bad they are and how bad God is. You have already decided that this is the case so everything you do is going to be for this reason. All you have to do is acknowledge that you dont believe what the bible and God says and leave it at that. I am not going to give you the answer you want because I believe that God is love and that there is more to what is said besides what you are implying. That is just the way it is. We are just going around in circles now.

So the bible isn't weak, Psalms 139 isn't weak, it was just written perfectly by an imperfect person? So when the imperfect person says a person will be happy if they bash an innocent child on rocks, that statement is perfect but the author is not. Am I getting this?

Once again you are the one who is twisting and changing things. If i say that man is weak you then say the bible is weak. If i say that God is perfect you then say what man has said is perfect so what is written is what God said. You want to attribute what a mere man has said to God and not allow any human aspect to the bible. You want to put onto God things that he did not do and say so that you can bring down God. So i cant say anything else as you see it the way you do and i see it the way i do.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

You can believe that if it makes you feel better.

Are you not an atheist? As an atheist, would you not disagree with me on the things of God? Am I wrong about that?

 

[BL2KTN]

And we should remember the following scriptural verses which tell us about the unbeliever, of how they are spiritually dead in their sins and trespasses (Ephesians 2:1-3; Colossians 2:13) and cannot truly understand the things of God (Romans 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14).

I have never researched this kind of topic before. I don't know why in the world I would want to in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, it does not matter. It is a foolish question and I feel it is only being asked to mock God, Christianity, and Christians for being in God and Christianity. A red herring, if you will. Am I wrong? And to answer your question, since I have never taken it upon myself to research this off the wall topic before, you might want to read the Taryag Mitzvot to learn more about the rituals and regulations of the Jewish Temple and religion for yourself. Because as I have already told you, it does not matter to me personally, especially from the perspective of eternity. All I know is God had His own laws, rules and regulations regarding the Jewish Temple and religion for His own reasons. None of that applies to me, as a Christian, today. The reasons why God disallowed men with crushed testicles into the Temple may be interesting or even intriguing history of the Jewish religion to some, but it isn't to me. I'm not Jewish, by ethnicity or religion, so none of that really matters in regards to my personal faith and belief in God Himself. So, you don't see any reason for what God did? So what? Neither do I but I am not God.

Thank you for showing us marvelously that you have no insight into the things of God any better than any non-believer. In fact, you may have less insight.

 

[bhsmte]

Are you not an atheist? As an atheist, would you not disagree with me on the things of God? Am I wrong about that?

You are very simple minded in your approach.

I have supported many Christians on this board regarding their interpretation of God and or the bible, when they don't cherry pick what they like and throw away what they don't like, or contradict themselves in the process. Do I agree with them? No, but that is separate as to whether they can view their own holy book with some level of objectivity.

 

[Sojourner1]

Please just answer the question: Why would God not allow men with crushed testicles in the temple? You are a true-believer, spiritually alive and able to understand the things of God, are you not?

Here is the answer to your question. The following is a small section from a much larger article (chapter of a book actually), the link to which I will post after the quoted material:

"To be sure, some ancient cult practices involved castration. Why would pagan devotees castrate themselves? To emulate the fertility goddesses they idolized, including Ashtoreth, Cybele, Aphrodite, Astarte, Magna Mater, Ma, and countless others --- who were all catered to by transvestite priests wanting to devote themselves in life-long commitment to, and worship of, their individual fertility goddesses. In order to do that, they wanted to make their bodies resemble, as closely as possible, the bodies of the individual goddesses they served. For these transvestite male temple cult prostitutes, there were two common castration options or practices: One practice was to break a clay pot and, from the shattered pieces, to take a shard and cut the testicles off (and sometimes the penis as well) in honor of the fertility goddess. Another way was to take the testicles and crush them in between two stones or rocks in order to render oneself a physiologic --- and, to a certain extent, an anatomic --- eunuch.

In the King James Version, Deuteronomy 23:1 is rendered, "He who is wounded in the stones ["stones" meant "testicles" in old English] or has his privy member cut off ["privy member" here refers to "private member" or "penis"] shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." Well, taken out of context, that is mighty strong language, as well as very puzzling relative to modern-day applicability. For example, there have been football accidents where a player has actually had to have both testicles removed because of damage sustained during the accident. Does that mean, based on the Law, that he should not be a part of the congregation of the Lord? No, again I say, the Law needs to be considered in the literary and historical contexts in which it has been written. The reason that God did not want people who had their penises cut off, or testes crushed or removed, to enter into His congregation was because such mutilation was commonly done in honor of pagan fertility goddesses. They were tokens of personal commitment and covenant vows made by pagan people to their idols. This disgusted God, --- as it should disgust God! It was, and is, detestable (i.e., abominable) to Him. God could spew people out because of that particular activity, because, though unknown to most of its practitioners, it sought to bring honor to the Devil himself.

Concerning the damaged testicles referred to in Deuteronomy 23:1, there is a slightly different reference relative to blemishes in general in Leviticus 21:17-20:

The LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.'" NIV​

Doesn't that sound somewhat strange to you? In terms of contemporary society and the understanding the Lord Jesus has brought through His Holy Spirit, you know that the Lord God Almighty would not prevent a dwarf from approaching Him in prayer or keep him from salvation. Why did it matter in ancient times? Because the Lord God Almighty was trying to convey to quite unsophisticated people that He is worthy of unblemished individuals and perfect sacrifices. He did not mean that He was rejecting these people forever, just that they were not to serve in priestly roles if they were disabled or disfigured. So, even though Leviticus 21:20 and Deuteronomy 23:1 both include eunuchs, Deuteronomy 23:1 is really speaking of those who have self-mutilated in order to honor fertility goddesses and Leviticus 21:20 is speaking about those of His congregation who were "blemished" accidentally or congenitally. To be sure, at that time the Lord was trying to convey that He is worthy of perfect sacrifices, the embodiment of which would be later found in the sacrifice of Christ Jesus."

Chapter Three: Levitical Law and Grace

 

[epluribus36]

You can believe that if it makes you feel better.

You're not an atheist?

 

[bhsmte]

You're not an atheist?

Absolutely, atheist towards the Christian God but that wasn't my point.

My point was, she can believe I disagree with her, simply because I am an atheist. We all know I guess, there couldn't be any other reason to disagree with her.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

Thank you for showing us marvelously that you have no insight into the things of God any better than any non-believer. In fact, you may have less insight.

I don't know because I don't care to know. It's that simple. It does not matter to me in the very least. This issue of God not allowing men with crushed testicles into the Temple has NO bearing whatsoever to my personal faith and belief in God. It has no bearing whatsoever on my salvation either. I DO NOT CARE. If you want to obsess over it, then so be it. That is your choice. I have better things to think about. And if I want to know something about God, such as the assurance of my salvation, then I will know it and I do know it. I know who God is and I know about His attributes. I know what God did for me on the cross of His Son, Jesus Christ. I know how God created creation in six days (and yes I believe that to be true). I know how God created us in His image. I know about the Bible prophecies and the End Times. I know what it means to be a true and genuine Christian, according to the Scriptures. I know the foundations of the Christian Faith - through the Scriptures. But I do not care to know, in the very least, why God did not allow men with crushed testicles into the Jewish Temple. So what?! I may have less insight about such a foolish and insignificant issue as that but as far as the real spiritual issues are concerned, I am not the one who is spiritually blind, especially into thinking that such a matter as the one you seem to be obsessing over actually matters from the perspective of eternity.

 

[BL2KTN]

I never said that. I said you have been explained several times what this verse was about but you keep repeating it over and over again in the same manner.

Why would you explain something everybody agrees about? We all agree that it is a song about revenge against the Babylonians, and the revenge is delightfully killing innocent children. We agree. What we don't agree on is why that should be scripture, why it should be sung amongst religious congregations, and you have yet to explain that. If you're not going to, please feel free to just say, "I'm not going to explain why this is called 'scripture'."

You keep saying God said this or instructed this.

Nope. Why in the world would I make such an evil claim about the creator of the universe? It is you who continues to say all scripture is God-breathed, including Psalms 137.

You have also had another explain to you some context but you also choose to ignore this.

I have quoted and responded to every single thing someone has said to me in this thread.

You are determined to put your own meaning and context to it so there's nothing i can do. I cant keep repeating this so I will have to leave it at that.

What meaning and context do I give it which is different than you?

It is not telling us to sing it in church. It is about someone else in history. God is not saying to sing this in church and it is not a instructional thing.

Do you not know what a psalm is?

The English title is from the Greek translation, ψαλμοί psalmoi, meaning "instrumental music" and, by extension, "the words accompanying the music." -- Psalms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you know this little about that which you defend?

The person writing it is saying that it is hard for them to sing a song about being in captivity. But the captors are making them do so. The expression in verse 9 is about how the writer felt about the people who killed his family and children and destroyed his city. He is angry and wants the same thing to happen to them. They use to kill the children in war as a way of stopping the enemies children growing up to come and make war against them in the future. This is how they were back then. It was different to now.

Fine, but why is it scripture?

But you are only looking at it in today's context. They also use to have people fight to the death in stadiums fro entertainment. They also use to crucify people to stakes. They also use to have slaves and sacrifice animals. It was a different time and war was a way of life. Revenge was a way of law and people thought this way. You are seeing things in black and white and dictating how you think it should be like either it was this way or this way and there is no other way but the way I say it has to be.

Again: but why is it scripture? Are you ever going to answer that?

No it is not the only purpose of psalms. have you ever research it your self instead of asking someone and then maybe holding perhaps misinformed interpretations to them. If you want to find out something you have to do some research yourself as well. This is the only way you can truly find out for your self. not on behalf of someone else but for yourself. Afterall you would do it with anything else but it seems you dont want to apply this to this subject.

I have a degree in college degree in biblical studies from an accredited university. What do you have?

You are the one who is saying they are about this and that. They are not just about praising God. You are trying to restrict them to what you want and what you want to make them for the purpose of making out how bad they are and how bad God is. You have already decided that this is the case so everything you do is going to be for this reason. All you have to do is acknowledge that you dont believe what the bible and God says and leave it at that. I am not going to give you the answer you want because I believe that God is love and that there is more to what is said besides what you are implying. That is just the way it is. We are just going around in circles now.

I have given you verse after verse after verse that shows the God of the Old Testament is not a god of love. You are free to have your belief, but you now are faced with the knowledge that the god you serve does not exist in the bible.

Once again you are the one who is twisting and changing things. If i say that man is weak you then say the bible is weak.

You said: "Humans wrote the bible so they will have all the weaknesses and imperfections like you and me."

Did that not mean that the bible would have imperfections and weaknesses because it was written by weak and imperfect humans?

You want to attribute what a mere man has said to God and not allow any human aspect to the bible. You want to put onto God things that he did not do and say so that you can bring down God. So i cant say anything else as you see it the way you do and i see it the way i do.

Would you at least do the one thing I've asked repeatedly in nearly every response I've given you? Would you please just tell us why Psalms 137 was included as scripture?

 

[epluribus36]

Absolutely, atheist towards the Christian God but that wasn't my point.

My point was, she can believe I disagree with her, simply because I am an atheist. We all know I guess, there couldn't be any other reason to disagree with her.

Oh I see. Sorry.

 

[BL2KTN]

Here is the answer to your question. The following is a small section from a much larger article (chapter of a book actually), the link to which I will post after the quoted material:

I find this explanation inadequate of a God with at least a middle school level education. If God wanted to excommunicate those who had chopped off or mutilated their genitalia in worship of another deity, why doesn't the text say so? Instead, the man who is injured by a bull bucking its legs is just as excommunicated as the guy who cuts off his penis to worship another god. A god of any intellect would have said "a man whose penis or testicles are cut off or crushed for worship of another god is removed from my presence." The text doesn't say that.

Furthermore I find your reference inadequate in that it gives no real proof of these actions having been taken by followers of these other gods. It is conjecture. In an age before any pain medications, are we to really believe that individuals were voluntarily crushing their testicles to worship other gods? Really??? Really???

For these reasons, I find your reference to be a good attempt at explaining an immoral section of the bible, but ultimately not based on truth or evidence.

 

[BL2KTN]

I don't know because I don't care to know. It's that simple. It does not matter to me in the very least.

I see. You demonstrably do not care about parts of the bible.

This issue of God not allowing men with crushed testicles into the Temple has NO bearing whatsoever to my personal faith and belief in God. It has no bearing whatsoever on my salvation either. I DO NOT CARE. If you want to obsess over it, then so be it. If I want to know something about God, such as the assurance of my salvation, then I will know it and I do know it. I know who God is and I know about His attributes.

And one of his attributes is that he does not want men with damaged testicles worshiping him.

I know what God did for me on the cross of His Son, Jesus Christ. I know how God created creation in six days (and yes I believe that to be true). I know how God created us in His image. I know about the Bible prophecies and the End Times. I know what it means to be a true and genuine Christian, according to the Scriptures. I know the foundations of the Christian Faith - through the Scriptures.

How did God create us in his image?

But I do not care to know, in the very least, why God did not allow men with crushed testicles into the Jewish Temple. So what?! I may have less insight about such a foolish and insignificant issue of why God did not allow men with crushed testicles into the Jewish Temple but as far as the real spiritual issues go, I am not the one who is spiritually blind, especially into thinking that such a matter as the one you are obsessed over actually matters, from the perspective of eternity.

So you think parts of the Old Testament are important (Genesis 1-2), but other parts are foolish (Deuteronomy 23)?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

You are very simple minded in your approach.

I have supported many Christians on this board regarding their interpretation of God and or the bible, when they don't cherry pick what they like and throw away what they don't like, or contradict themselves in the process. Do I agree with them? No, but that is separate as to whether they can view their own holy book with some level of objectivity.

Absolutely, atheist towards the Christian God but that wasn't my point.

My point was, she can believe I disagree with her, simply because I am an atheist. We all know I guess, there couldn't be any other reason to disagree with her.

I see your point and I understand what you are saying here. My apologies, because I thought you were being facetious in your comment.

 

[Sojourner1]

I find this explanation inadequate of a God with at least a middle school level education. If God wanted to excommunicate those who had chopped off or mutilated their genitalia in worship of another deity, why doesn't the text say so? Instead, the man who is injured by a bull bucking its legs is just as excommunicated as the guy who cuts off his penis to worship another god. A god of any intellect would have said "a man whose penis or testicles are cut off or crushed for worship of another god is removed from my presence." The text doesn't say that.

Furthermore I find your reference inadequate in that it gives no real proof of these actions having been taken by followers of these other gods. It is conjecture. In an age before any pain medications, are we to really believe that individuals were voluntarily crushing their testicles to worship other gods? Really??? Really???

For these reasons, I find your reference to be a good attempt at explaining an immoral section of the bible, but ultimately not based on truth or evidence.

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm sure you realize that there are many more verses and passages throughout the Bible that could add context to the answer given, as well as outside sources regarding pagan worship practices, but it would take way to much time and would serve no purpose as you are not going to change your mind. The purpose of this thread is to discuss why Christianity is philosophically different from other religions. Now this thread appears to be shifting to a general apologetics thread in that Christians are being asked to defend their beliefs.

 

[BL2KTN]

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm sure you realize that there are many more verses and passages throughout the Bible that could add context to the answer given, as well as outside sources regarding pagan worship practices, but it would take way to much time and would serve no purpose as you are not going to change your mind.

I'm a follower of the truth. You show the evidence is in favor of what you say and I'll happily drop my current position.

I am not aware of any verses or passages which give context for what you or your reference claim. Neither am I aware of an archaeological evidence. I am aware, however, that you hastily provided a reference, then wrongly judged me when I provided logical reasons for rejecting your reference's thesis.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss why Christianity is philosophically different from other religions. Now this thread appears to be shifting to a general apologetics thread in that Christians are being asked to defend their beliefs.

Would you say that a religion whose text excommunicates men with injured genitalia is philosophically different or do you feel that is shared by other religions?

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

I see. You demonstrably do not care about parts of the bible.

No. I have demonstrated that such a thing does not personally apply to me, to my faith or to my belief in God. The answer does not change my faith in God or hinder my belief in Him. As I said, He is God and He can do whatever He wants, whether I fully understand His reasoning or not. But what I do know about God, all of the things that I listed before, is what matters to me personally. My knowledge concerning my own personal salvation positively trumps knowing the reasons why God did what He did in Old Testament law for the Jews. There are essentials of the Christian faith and then there are non-essentials.

And one of his attributes is that he does not want men with damaged testicles worshiping him.

That doesn't even deserve an answer.

How did God create us in his image?

The answer to this question can be found in Genesis 1:26-27.

So you think parts of the Old Testament are important (Genesis 1-2), but other parts are foolish (Deuteronomy 23)?

No, I think your obsessing over this question is foolish.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

You're entitled to your opinion and I'm sure you realize that there are many more verses and passages throughout the Bible that could add context to the answer given, as well as outside sources regarding pagan worship practices, but it would take way to much time and would serve no purpose as you are not going to change your mind. The purpose of this thread is to discuss why Christianity is philosophically different from other religions. Now this thread appears to be shifting to a general apologetics thread in that Christians are being asked to defend their beliefs.

Agreed.