Buffet Christianity

[Zzyzx]

.
Buffet Christianity / Pick and Choose / Cherry Pick

Focus on parts of the Bible and ignore others. Claim that it is 'The word of God' also claim that parts have been superseded (God changed his mind about things?).

Paul/Saul and gospel writers disagree with many teachings of Judaism but claim that their icon was the Jewish messiah (denied by Jews).

The NT does not list the Ten Commandments. Those come from Judaism (but are revered in Christendom). However, 600+ other rules from Judaism are cast aside as though they don't apply to Christians. Why some and not others? Did God decide which rules no longer apply or which rules apply to which people? Or did humans decide?

Some Bible stories have come to be accepted as folklore or myth or parables (or simply ignored) while others are fiercely defended as true accounts. Did Samson push down a large building by brute strength? Did Jonah live for three days inside a fish? Did the sea part on command? Well, maybe not literally, only figuratively.

Did Jesus come back to life? "Now wait a minute. That is a true story."

Pick and choose.

Which stories, if any, are true and accurate accounts of events that actually happened in the real world AND how can that be determined?

[Mithrae]

But they don't, because their leader Paul was rather inconsistent on that score (instead associating circumcision with the law of Moses and pretty explicitly rejecting the practice, perhaps not too happy with what had been done to him as a baby).

I don't know about Paul as a baby, that would be interesting to see his life recorded on a biography or something.

Where can I find that story anyways?

When Paul was a baby - just eight days old! - some men took a knife to his genitals (Philippians 3:5). It doesn't always go perfectly, even these days. In another passage Paul himself makes a comparison between circumcision and castration (Galatians 5:11-12). There's no way of knowing of course, but Paul's opposition to circumcision despite being such a big fan of Abraham is a curious inconsistency which kind of invites speculation. He was also famously celibate - apparently unmarried even before becoming a Christian - which I've read would have been quite unusual for a Jewish man in that era.

[Aetixintro]

To me, there are inherent limitations to mixing good and evil while having the backing from the Bible.

Eventually, the mixing of good and evil leads you further and further away from God and the Bible. In the end, God and Bible is gone in favor of evil and you've become schizophrenic in plain and nothing matters much other than whatever leisure time or work too if you're that lucky!

[Zzyzx]

.

Eventually, the mixing of good and evil leads you further and further away from God and the Bible. In the end, God and Bible is gone in favor of evil and you've become schizophrenic in plain and nothing matters much other than whatever leisure time or work too if you're that lucky!

Does that apply to all people who do not follow the Bible and its 'God'?

'favor of evil'
'become schizophrenic'
'nothing matters but leisure or work (if you're lucky)'

Are you actually presenting that as a true statement? I trust that readers know better based on their experiences in life. It sounds like propaganda from religious promoters attempting to justify worshiping their 'gods'.

[tonjun]

When Paul was a baby - just eight days old! - some men took a knife to his genitals (Philippians 3:5). It doesn't always go perfectly, even these days. In another passage Paul himself makes a comparison between circumcision and castration (Galatians 5:11-12). There's no way of knowing of course, but Paul's opposition to circumcision despite being such a big fan of Abraham is a curious inconsistency which kind of invites speculation. He was also famously celibate - apparently unmarried even before becoming a Christian - which I've read would have been quite unusual for a Jewish man in that era.

Okay that's not that bad. I mean by eight days of age I assume he can't remember what it felt like getting his foreskin cut off.

But you're right, Paul has some tendencies to preach against the Mosaic law like: faith is all that matters and not deeds. Yet in James he says: faith is dead without deeds.

That really skews things how Paul is so different from the OT and some NT people.

[Aetixintro]

Does that apply to all people who do not follow the Bible and its 'God'?
...
Are you actually presenting that as a true statement? I trust that readers know better based on their experiences in life. It sounds like propaganda from religious promoters attempting to justify worshiping their 'gods'.

Yes. I'm just adjusting the notion of "buffet Christianity". Now, what is wholly good Christianity like? Can it be at least the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule? To choose the most good Christianity, you may want the most ethical and moral and so on. I'm saying it.

[JehovahsWitness]

..would be obligating themselves to abide by the terms of Abraham's covenant.

You have yet to explain what you understand to be the terms of Abraham's covenant. (not to be confused with the "covenant of circumcision")?

The sources from Genesis is compiled report two covenants God made with Isaac's father

Are you suggesting that God mentioned circumsision when he made what you yourself called "the first" covenant with Abraham?




I find those that do not really know their subject tend to prefer to stay away from specifics in favor of pontificating about grand conclusions, fortunately I have confidence that is NOT the case on this forum.

For more on the specifics requested see my earlier post HERE
viewtopic.php?p=1014440#p1014440

I await with anticipation your response to my specific questions with regard to the terms and conditions of the first covenant God made with Abraham. as (as Paul was well aware) that is indeed the basis upon which one can objectively establish if Christians should be circumcised or not.




JW

[Zzyzx]

Yes. I'm just adjusting the notion of "buffet Christianity". Now, what is wholly good Christianity like?

Is there any such thing as wholly good Christianity? There may well be some individual Christians that at least come close to being wholly good.

By taking on the Jewish God and literature, Christianity saddled itself with a lot of baggage including a God that is portrayed as angry, vindictive, homicidal. Jesus is portrayed as being very different but is supposedly joined at the hip with 'the father'.

Can it be at least the 10 Commandments and the Golden Rule?

The Ten Commandments are Jewish and are not even listed in the New Testament. Four of the ten are about worship. The remaining six don't provide much guidance in real life.

The Golden Rule is another name for the Ethic of Reciprocity that is found in many cultures and ideologies, some of which predate Christianity and Judaism.

Both of those can be replaced by personal integrity and concern for others.

To choose the most good Christianity, you may want the most ethical and moral and so on. I'm saying it.

All of us would be well advised to do our best at being ethical, moral, etc. Some prefer to do so through religion. Others do so without religion. Personal choice.

[tonjun]

..would be obligating themselves to abide by the terms of Abraham's covenant.

I find those that do not really know their subject tend to prefer to stay away from specifics in favor of pontificating about grand conclusions, fortunately I have confidence that is NOT the case on this forum.

...

I await with anticipation your response to my specific questions with regard to the terms and conditions of the first covenant God made with Abraham. as (as Paul was well aware) that is indeed the basis upon which one can objectively establish if Christians should be circumcised or not.




JW

I think you're trying to make a moot point here JW. Mithrae already mentioned that circumcision didn't only apply to Abraham's descendants. That's in the Bible where I'm sure you can see in Genesis 17.

I think that is a good place to start.

That will bypass this whole gymnastic course you're trying to get people to hoop through to find your answer.

[Mithrae]

I find those that do not really know their subject tend to prefer to stay away from specifics in favor of pontificating about grand conclusions, fortunately I have confidence that is NOT the case on this forum.

I myself find that those who are shown serious problems with their views sometimes adopt the approach of 'playing dumb,' pretending not to spot the issues and instead making exhaustive demands for ever more evidence or details of what has been covered. But I too have confidence that such a thing would not occur in this thread

The sources from Genesis is compiled report two covenants God made with Isaac's father

Are you suggesting that God mentioned circumsision when he made what you yourself called "the first" covenant with Abraham? . . . .


I await with anticipation your response to my specific questions with regard to the terms and conditions of the first covenant God made with Abraham. as (as Paul was well aware) that is indeed the basis upon which one can objectively establish if Christians should be circumcised or not.

No, as I said in that post - in the very next sentence! - that "was made with Abram and is entirely ethnocentric, concerning only the Israelites' sojourn in Egypt and their eventual conquest and ownership of Canaan (Genesis 15)."

You seem to be confused perhaps about which covenant - from Genesis 15 or 17 - was the first?

"The other in Genesis 17 also focuses on the land to some extent, but says that he will be the 'father of many nations' (and hence gives him the name Abraham); provides for the inclusion of people who are not biological descendants and downplays/omits some who are (instead emphasizing, as Paul puts it, the 'children of the promise'); and it is this one which is said to be an everlasting covenant."

..would be obligating themselves to abide by the terms of Abraham's covenant.

You have yet to explain what you understand to be the terms of Abraham's covenant. (not to be confused with the "covenant of circumcision")?

As I've already pointed out more than once, the covenant of circumcision was the occasion on which he became known as Abraham: You've given absolutely no reason for imagining that there is some distinction between the two. As for all the terms of the covenant, you can read them for yourself in Genesis 17; feel free to let me know where you think I've gone wrong.

But I think it's possible that the confusion here stems more from Paul's claims that Christians are descendants of Abraham (eg. Rom. 4:16-17, citing Genesis 17:5) moreso than from the text of Genesis itself: Without a prior commitment to Jesus and Christianity being the 'fulfillment' of those texts, I don't think that anyone reading this iron age Jewish political propaganda would decide that Yahweh's interactions with Abraham were at all relevant to foreign believers in the human sacrifice of a godman. Even that Genesis 17 covenant focuses quite a bit on the land of Canaan after all and, despite being less explicitly ethnocentric than the first covenant, most non-Pauline readers would probably understand reference to Abraham descendants (and even those 'many nations') as being mostly biological rather than 'spiritual' descendants.

However if we accept for the sake of argument the dubious Pauline assertion that Christians are 'descendants' of Abraham and heirs to his everlasting covenant as the father of many nations, then according to Genesis circumcision of the flesh is obviously and unequivocally a part of that: Paul's other assertions that circumcision relates to the law of Moses and that Christians can make do with some kind of 'circumcision of the heart' flat out contradict his attempt to co-opt Genesis for his own gospel.

[William]

But they don't, because their leader Paul was rather inconsistent on that score (instead associating circumcision with the law of Moses and pretty explicitly rejecting the practice, perhaps not too happy with what had been done to him as a baby).

I don't know about Paul as a baby, that would be interesting to see his life recorded on a biography or something.

Where can I find that story anyways?

When Paul was a baby - just eight days old! - some men took a knife to his genitals (Philippians 3:5). It doesn't always go perfectly, even these days. In another passage Paul himself makes a comparison between circumcision and castration (Galatians 5:11-12). There's no way of knowing of course, but Paul's opposition to circumcision despite being such a big fan of Abraham is a curious inconsistency which kind of invites speculation. He was also famously celibate - apparently unmarried even before becoming a Christian - which I've read would have been quite unusual for a Jewish man in that era.

I wonder if that can also explain his occupation up until his roadside alternate reality experience?