Satanists .....

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Gotcha, so evil is good, and good is a crime. Sounds like Satanism.

Could just as well be a loose paraphrase of William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. By the way you didn't answer my question.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I doubt it. I try to live as Christ lived, merely as an amusing ruse, so I probably have him duped. This thread is the first one in which I've ever revealed my true alliance with wickedness.

Pretty sinister. Thanks for coming straight at least.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Could just as well be a loose paraphrase of William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. By the way you didn't answer my question.

...or a warning from the Bible.

From what I understand both names are associated with the devil. What's the difference?

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Matt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

It is very wearying to see citations of Scripture used -- entirely out of context -- to
support an irrelevant notion.

Dogs and swine were Jewish terms of contempt for Gentiles, not 'evil people.' It
likely derives from the Jewish-Christian community -- like the ones with whom St
Peter was fraternizing, maybe -- who felt that only Jews should be Christians because
the Messiash (Messiach) was for Israel. When this passage was adopted by Christians,
it was understood to mean dealing with another, thickheaded Christian, as the preceding
passage (St Matthew 7:1-5) clearly indicates.

Nemesio

Originally posted by The Chess Express
I’m not so sure. The two of you seem pretty tight. I doubt the “called and ordained servant of God” as you put it would allow a Satanist in his clan or belong to all the same clans that you do, unless of coarse you’re referring to the God of evil.

This might explain a few things...

Yes, you see Kirksey's alignment is Neutral Good, while Dr. S is obviously Chaotic Evil. These two warriors would never make a successful party.

Originally posted by telerion
Yes, you see Kirksey's alignment is Neutral Good, while Dr. S is obviously Chaotic Evil. These two warriors would never make a successful party.

Wow.

Blast from the past.

Originally posted by Nemesio
It is very wearying to see citations of Scripture used -- entirely out of context -- to
support an irrelevant notion.

Dogs and swine were Jewish terms of contempt for Gentiles, not 'evil people.' It
likely derives from the Jewish-Christian community -- like the ones with whom St
Peter was fraternizing, maybe -- who felt that only Jews should be C ...[text shortened]... thickheaded Christian, as the preceding
passage (St Matthew 7:1-5) clearly indicates.

Nemesio

Dogs and swine were Jewish terms of contempt for Gentiles, not 'evil people.' It
likely derives from the Jewish-Christian community -- like the ones with whom St
Peter was fraternizing, maybe -- who felt that only Jews should be Christians because
the Messiash (Messiach) was for Israel.

References? “dogs” and “swine” seem pretty generic to me.

The passage doesn’t make much sense the way that you interpret it. Jesus specifically said a number of times in no uncertain terms that he was here for everybody, not just the Jews. Edit: Matt 7:8 for example. Do you believe that Jesus is only for the Jews?

When this passage was adopted by Christians, it was understood to mean dealing with another, thickheaded Christian, as the preceding passage (St Matthew 7:1-5) clearly indicates.

I don’t see the connection you mentioned. In Matthew 7:1-5 Jesus says don’t judge otherwise you will be judged. In Matthew 7:6 Jesus says be smart about who you preach to. This is why Paul was going to be put to death by the Jews when he entered Damascus. He didn’t heed the warning. If the Jews are the good guys what sense does this make?

Originally posted by telerion
Yes, you see Kirksey's alignment is Neutral Good, while Dr. S is obviously Chaotic Evil. These two warriors would never make a successful party.

Play much D&D?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I doubt it. I try to live as Christ lived, merely as an amusing ruse, so I probably have him duped. This thread is the first one in which I've ever revealed my true alliance with wickedness.

Dr. S, the Vice-Empress of Cyberwarfare in the New England Grand Coven commands you to report to the next gathering. She wishes to speak to you about your recently blown cover. This is no small matter. The RHP Spirituality Forum may seem an insignificant duty, but our efforts to rub out xianity here bolster our struggle in the War on Xmas, our Evolution Propaganda efforts, and of course our wider campaign to prepare for the coming of the Great One and Armageddon.

Also the first prototypes of the Mark are nearly ready for trial dissemination. We need to begin construction of a website promoting them. The plan right now is to pass them off to teenagers as 'barcode tattoos.' Secular label musicians will begin sporting them as well in an attempt to reach these precious future slaves.

667

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Play much D&D?

Never. I got that post from an ouija board. Why do you ask?

Originally posted by The Chess Express
References? “dogs” and “swine” seem pretty generic to me.

Of course they seem generic to you. That's because you are a 21st-century American
reading a document written by a Hellenized Jew for a Jewish audience.

If you call someone a 'swine' in Germany, for example, you might get punched in the
face. Understanding the Bible is not about what it says but what the authors
believed it said.

As for my references, my primary reference is the citations in the NAB, but you can
read any study of 1st-century Jews and discover the tensions that they had with the
Gentiles, as well as their common epithets. Read the Dead Sea Scrolls, for one. Lots
of tension. Dogs and pigs were unclean animals, things which Jews were
forbidden to eat. Dogs were worse than pigs, in that they were scavenging carrion
eaters.

You'll find that the first manual for Christians, the Didache (dating from about 110 CE)
uses the term 'dogs' for the unbaptized and cites St Matthew 7:6 specifically. So,
who do you think knows better: 2nd-century Christians or you?

I note that 2 Peter 2:22 also makes use of the same two metaphors in reference to
people who teach falsely about Jesus, although in a different context.

The passage doesn’t make much sense the way that you interpret it. Jesus specifically said a number of times in no uncertain terms that he was here for everybody, not just the Jews. Do you believe that Jesus is only for the Jews?

You know I know this. But you didn't read what I wrote. I said the Jewish-Christian
audience. We know from Galatians that there was a group of Christians who were of
Jewish origin who did not want to fraternize with Gentile Christians. St Paul was not
happy about this and chastized them. This passage likely derives from that tradition,
either as a perversion of something Jesus actually said, or something stuffed in His mouth.
Either way, when the Gentiles got a hold of it (after the fall of the Jewish-Christian Church
with the death of St James, the brother of the Jesus), they reinterpretted it (as the early
Church Fathers indicate), to be an admonition against thickheaded Christians. That is, if
a Christian is being stubborn and insistent, then 'dust off your sandals.'

You cannot read a 2000-year old document and expect to understand its contents. You
need to study the people who studied the texts of the Bible, the writings of the early
Church Fathers if you ever want to get a sense of who the audience was and how the
texts were received. In this vein, the Roman and Eastern Churches are very attentive,
because they value theological tradition so highly.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Satan was just doing his job...just doing his job.

Now, are Lucifer & Satan one & the same, or was Lucifer Satan's first assignment?

Lucifer and Satan are not the same.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by The Chess Express
[b]References? “dogs” and “swine” seem pretty generic to me.

Of course they seem generic to you. That's because you are a 21st-century American
reading a document written by a Hellenized Jew for a Jewish audience.

If you call someone a 'swine' in Germany, for example, you might get punched in the
f hes are very attentive,
because they value theological tradition so highly.

Nemesio[/b]

Of course they seem generic to you. That's because you are a 21st-century American
reading a document written by a Hellenized Jew for a Jewish audience.

Not according to Matt 7:8 as I have mentioned. Why would Jesus say that he is here for the world if this were true? Do you think that Jesus is only for the Jews?

If you call someone a 'swine' in Germany, for example, you might get punched in the
face.

The same is true here in America, and the same was true at the time of Jesus. Hence the term “generic.”

As for my references, my primary reference is the citations in the NAB, but you can
read any study of 1st-century Jews and discover the tensions that they had with the
Gentiles, as well as their common epithets. Read the Dead Sea Scrolls, for one. Lots
of tension. Dogs and pigs were [b]unclean animals, things which Jews were
forbidden to eat. Dogs were worse than pigs, in that they were scavenging carrion
eaters.[/b]

I understand that the Jews have a long history of tension with other people. If I call somebody a dick today, that is accepted as an insult pretty much everywhere, would you agree? I’m sure there were Jewish people who called other Jewish people pigs and dogs.

You'll find that the first manual for Christians, the Didache (dating from about 110 CE)uses the term 'dogs' for the unbaptized and cites St Matthew 7:6 specifically. So,
who do you think knows better: 2nd-century Christians or you? I note that 2 Peter 2:22 also makes use of the same two metaphors in reference to people who teach falsely about Jesus, although in a different context.

150 years is a long time. Do you think fashion stays the same? When I was growing up, before the rap craze, to call somebody a dog was an insult. Nowadays it’s a compliment.

You know I know this. But you didn't read what I wrote. I said the [b]Jewish-Christianaudience. We know from Galatians that there was a group of Christians who were of Jewish origin who did not want to fraternize with Gentile Christians. St Paul was not happy about this and chastized them. This passage likely derives from that tradition,
either as a perversion of something Jesus actually said, or something stuffed in His mouth.Either way, when the Gentiles got a hold of it (after the fall of the Jewish-Christian Churchwith the death of St James, the brother of the Jesus), they reinterpretted it (as the earlyChurch Fathers indicate), to be an admonition against thickheaded Christians. That is, ifa Christian is being stubborn and insistent, then 'dust off your sandals.'[/b]

Both St Paul and Jesus taught the same thing in this regard. Christians should avoid the wicked.

Matt 8:21-22 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. 22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Here Jesus tells his disciple to renounce his own dad because he was wicked as well as his friends.

Jesus also says somewhere (can’t remember where right now) that he who doesn’t give up his close relatives for him if need be is not worthy of him. The message is clear. Avoid the wicked.

St Paul is clear on this as well.

"Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character." (1 Corinthians 15:33)

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14).

Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethern, mark them which causes diversions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which yee have learned; and avoid them.

You cannot read a 2000-year old document and expect to understand its contents. You
need to study the people who studied the texts of the Bible, the writings of the early
Church Fathers if you ever want to get a sense of who the audience was and how the
texts were received. In this vein, the Roman and Eastern Churches are very attentive,
because they value theological tradition so highly.

I appreciate your knowledge of the ancient scripture. It seems like you are always getting me to mess up my sleep schedule to research something new in the scripture. 🙂 I still don't find your interpretation of Matt 7:6 convincing however. It seems like you put an awful lot of words in Jesus’ mouth. Sometimes it is best just to read what is there and not try so hard to force fit it into your own view.

Originally posted by The Chess Express
Not according to Matt 7:8 as I have mentioned. Why would Jesus say that he is here for the world if this were true? Do you think that Jesus is only for the Jews?

You aren't reading what I wrote. I did not say 'Jesus is only for the Jews.' Please,
I cannot continue to respond with patience if you persist in implying I believe this.
I said: The author of Saint Matthew's Gospel was writing for a Jewish-Christian
audience. We know from both Scripture and history that that audience
was particularly hostile to Gentile-Christian people. They took Jesus's message
to mean that Jesus was the Jewish Messiach -- that is, not for Gentiles. St
Paul did not see it this way, he saw Jesus's message as applicable for all people, for
in heaven there is Gentile or Jew, &c &c.

Do you see what I am saying? We don't know what Jesus's opinion was because He
didn't write anything down. We have what we suppose are (mostly) His words from
four different authors who had their own audiences and own opinions.


The same is true here in America, and the same was true at the time of Jesus. Hence the term “generic.”

Wrong. 'Swine' is of 'curseword' proportions, like calling a person's mother a whore,
in Germany. It doesn't have that connotation in English.

I understand that the Jews have a long history of tension with other people. If I call somebody a dick today, that is accepted as an insult pretty much everywhere, would you agree? I’m sure there were Jewish people who called other Jewish people pigs and swines.

No. Do you not understand that dogs and pigs were unclean? Unclean was a
nasty no-no. Jews did not do unclean things, and if they did, it entailed massive
purification rituals. It was like having a 1920s white man call another white man
'nigger.' It just doesn't make sense.

150 years is a long time. Do you think fashion stays the same? When I was growing up, before the rap craze, to call somebody a dog was an insult. Nowadays it’s a compliment.

We are talking 80 years from the time of Jesus's death, and well within a generation of
the lifetime of any of His disciples. Please try to think like a 1st-century Jew. How do
you do that? Read 1st-century Jewish literature. You'll find that 'dog' and 'swine' are
reserved for Gentiles.

Both St Paul and Jesus taught the same thing in this regard. Christians should avoid the wicked.

Where is this stated? I know there are passages saying avoid being wicked, but to avoid
the wicked is absurd. The reason that the Gospel is called 'Good News' is because, by
defintion, it is to be proclaimed. The people who have heard it don't need to keep
hearing it...it's 'Old News,' so to speak.

Matt 8:21-22 And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. 22 But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

Here Jesus tells his disciple to renounce his own dad because he was wicked as well as his friends.

WHAT?! Totally wrong. This passage is about a person prioritizing the 'needs' of the dead
over the needs of the living, or someone who is prioritizing something corporeal over
the spiritual. It's not about good or evil in any way, shape or form.

Who taught you this?!

Jesus also says somewhere (can’t remember where right now) that he who doesn’t give up his close relatives for him if need be is not worthy of him. The message is clear. Avoid the wicked.

Again, this is about putting God first, and family second. Jesus also says that you have
to deny your very self. Does that entail that you should avoid yourself? Of course not!

"Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character." (1 Corinthians 15:33)


"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14).

Thessalonians 5:22, "Abstain from all appearance of evil."

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethern, mark them which causes diversions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which yee have learned; and avoid them.

All of these disparate citations from Scripture -- out of context, of course -- are of the
same sort. They are admonitions about consorting with evildoers, that the good not
become corrupted. This is not a command to avoid evildoers. You need to read the entire
passage of a letter -- or better yet, the whole letter continuously -- to get the gist of St Paul's
writing style. There are all sorts of different sections to his letters; these passages derive from
sections which admonish the reader -- the faithful Gospel spreaders -- about being too chummy
with the fun-loving, Gentile pagans. These passages are abound. But so, too, are passages
which speak to preaching the Good News to all people, and to especially sinners. This has
been the methodolgy of the Christian Church since the beginning! Suddenly, you think somehow
something was wrong with it?

I appreciate your knowledge of the ancient scripture. It seems like you are always getting me to mess up my sleep schedule to research something new in the scripture. 🙂 I still don't find your interpretation of Matt 7:6 convincing however. It seems like you put an awful lot of words in Jesus’ mouth. Sometimes it is best just to read what is there and not try so hard to force fit it into your own view.

This is backwards! You can't just 'read what is there.' Try to read any other book that's older
than 100 years. Hell, read Grapes of Wrath or The Good Earth. Many of the references in those
books are unintelligible without good footnotes. Dracula is that much harder. Canterbury Tales
is borderline nonsense at times, Beowolf, too. Why do you think you can 'read what it says' with
the Bible, a collection of books that has suffered from more misreferences than any other book
on the planet? If anything, if you care about the Bible's contents, you should be more vigilent,
more studious, more diligent in safeguarding that you are really getting at the heart of the author's
intent. You can only do that by hardcore study of primary, secondary and tertiary literature about
the Bible and the literature that was created in the same period, not 'just reading it.'

And it's not 'my view!' This is where you are caught up. I am not trying to make Jesus fit a
mould which happens to be congenial to me. If it is clear that the Jews used 'dog' and 'swine' to
mean specific things, and if it is clear that the author of St Matthew's Gospel is a Hellenized Jew,
then to conclude otherwise would be contrary to reason. It's not that I want the Gospels to read
a certain way or not, it's that they do.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
I find your repeated interest in Satanism confusing. Why do you want to talk with
Satanists on this site? Is it because you find yourself unfulfilled by your own faith?

Nemesio

Posing as being confused ..... and the usual innuendo.