Why do Gentiles assume they should follow the ten commandments?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by roberto

I am specifically refering to the Christian jesus religion that was created in 325AD by Emperor Constantine.

Some manifestations of willful ignorance appear to be uniquely persistent.

[kjw47]

Originally Posted by roberto

I am specifically refering to the Christian jesus religion that was created in 325AD by Emperor Constantine.

There are also jesuses around claiming to be the anointed one like for instance the jesus of the Rastafarians whom they call heil selassie.

And in places like Portugal you find that about every second male is called jesus.
.

yes 325 ad--the great apostasy came to life-- the tree trunk-- through the centuries many branches popped off of it because someone saw something terribly wrong in the prior one-- i think there are over 40,000 of those disunified mass of confusion religions claiming to be christian. Wisdom suggests applying Gods word to it--- A good tree produces good fruit-- A rotten tree produces rotten fruit.

[roberto]

Originally Posted by kjw47

yes 325 ad--the great apostasy came to life-- the tree trunk-- through the centuries many branches popped off of it because someone saw something terribly wrong in the prior one-- i think there are over 40,000 of those disunified mass of confusion religions claiming to be christian. Wisdom suggests applying Gods word to it--- A good tree produces good fruit-- A rotten tree produces rotten fruit.

You are so correct, they saw that the tree had a Jewish root and hated it, so they popped of a branch and planted it in dung and raised a greek tree.

Revelation 18:4
Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;

[sojourner]

Feel better, now that you've "dismissed" two of the world's great religions?

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by sojourner

Feel better, now that you've "dismissed" two of the world's great religions?

great is a relative term

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by waitasec

great is a relative term

True, but not sojourner's point.

[roberto]

Originally Posted by Harmonious

True, but not sojourner's point.

Harmonious, I do not understand these guys, could you please explain how you understand my "point".

[Harmonious]

Originally Posted by roberto

Harmonious, I do not understand these guys, could you please explain how you understand my "point".

It is obvious from earlier posts of yours that you were insulting Jews and how Jews believe and/or practice, by drawing on examples of the most extreme behavior and trying to paint that as "normative Judaism".

And based on some of the posts that sojourner was pointing to, you are putting down Christians.

So, between all of your posts lately, you ended up "dissing" Jews and Christians.

To be honest, I don't know WHAT point you were trying to make. I was making the point that I understood what sojourner meant to say.

[sojourner]

It's obvious, dear roberto, that you are either willfully or unconsciously ignorant of the culture of both religions. You spend all your time touting what these religions "ought" to be, that you fail to fully appreciate what they truly are. No organic entity remains the same -- all things change, or they die. Religion will surely become insignificant when you place it under glass, as you seem to be doing here.

[Shermana]

And based on some of the posts that sojourner was pointing to, you are putting down Christians.

I put down 'Christians" every time I use the term in quotation marks. However, Roberto here is not doing anything wrong by pointing out the errors in their doctrines and general reasoning and scriptural exegesis. I point out how illogical the Trinity and anti-Judaism (antinomianism) on numerous posts, all for the purpose of debate. You put down Jesus by saying he wasn't the Jewish Messiah in a similar way, are you not "attacking" Christians in the same way by denying the Christhood of Jesus and saying he's a heretic and that Jews who obey him are apostates and all that? What's the difference in calling a "Messianic Jew" an apostate and "Dissing" "Christians" because of the spurious doctrines and passages they cling to which prevents them from realizing the truth of Christianity's totally Israelite roots?

So, between all of your posts lately, you ended up "dissing" Jews and Christians.

Do I "diss" Judaism by saying that I think the Talmud and that various Rabbinical opinions are wrong? If that counts as "dissing", I guess legitimate debate is all a diss fest. Even if Roberto uses a few extreme examples that don't represent the majority, he is nonetheless presenting the fact that Rabbinical opinion, even if very fringe, is not necessarily all correct, and the issue to decide what is and isn't correct is totally arbitrary and based on majority consensus.

You spend all your time touting what these religions "ought" to be,

What is wrong with having a stance on what a religion should be and what it should not be? That is the very reason why each of us believes the particulars we do assuming we don't do it purely for tradition and social value. To have a problem with the investigation of the roots and origin of a movement and sticking to those roots and origins is in itself trying to say what the religion "o8ught to be". You yourself seem to have a very assertive stance of what "Christianity" Ought to be.

that you fail to fully appreciate what they truly are.

What's wrong with criticizing what many of their manifestations truly "are" and arguing that they "ought" not to be how they are logically through debate?

No organic entity remains the same -- all things change, or they die.

A few posts back you will see that an entire tangent argument was made after me saying that the Talmud was not the original kind of Judaism as practiced by the ancient Israelites. Apparently saying that Judaism has "changed' since the old days hits a nerve to some. But if you apply to this the Nazarene Roots of Chrisitanity, a different standard arises? What's wrong with staying the same? If you change too much you die. The things that last the longest are those that can survive with minimal adaptation. Who decides what should change? The majority of the entire culture at large? Like I said, adultery should be fine in the French church if that's the case.

Religion will surely become insignificant when you place it under glass, as you seem to be doing here.

Maybe religion for the most part SHOULD be insigificant and that's the problem: When they are examined carefully, the false arguements start to expose themselves and logic shifts towards the "ought" is and what the is "ought" to be.