Patterns.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (25)
sorted by:
It’s easier to consider it like church doctrine, writ very, very large.
The same way the Methodist church is currently promoting LGBTP wamen pastors of color, and the Episcopalian church is aiding and abetting an invasion, they’re both doing so based off doctrine, and not scripture.
Just like these church doctrines, there are parts of the Talmud that are not off-base - merely context and historic records, and there are other parts that are horrific.
All teachings must be weighed against scripture, which a lot of Talmudists, and increasingly, Christian denominations, do not do very regularly.
very reasonable take.
It's just frustrating because while many people, as you say, do weigh them against scripture, a significant portion also consider them equal to or higher than scripture. I just don't understand how a religion claiming to be the chosen people and god's light to the nations wouldn't read something like the "3 years old and a day" quote and immediately strike it from the book, instead choosing to actively pursue such beliefs as law for hundreds of years.
Something something stiff necked people something something yada yada.
Then again, aren’t we all?
Some Methodist churches were hiring sodomist pastors in the 80’s. The Catholic Church has its share of skeletons in the closet. Save for certain red lines, one might have been hard pressed to identify me as a believer in my 20s, and occasionally even now.
Past that, Satan is always looking to infiltrate. Wolf in sheep’s clothing. This is a spiritual war. Principalities and powers, not flesh and blood.
another good take. Thanks.
Reasonable take but the Talmud is worse that what you're saying. Jesus said the Pharisees were the children of the devil. Those pharisee and their students are responsible for the Talmud. The Talmud is the work of the children of Satan. It's full of lies and deception.
No, I noted that there are portions of the Talmud that are “horrifically” bad, and portions that are indeed reasonable commentary and historic notes, which is also true.
If you like, I’ll add that there are probably sections that are incorrect, but not as bad.
We have now covered all three cases.
I do not believe the books are generally worth knowing except as a means of showing errancy or perhaps occasionally looking up a historical context, and I have other things to do with my time. There’s too much to learn about the Bible itself. Doesn’t mean I’m not going to try and be objective.