BEWARE THE RED HEIFER: How religious nutballs could start World War III

Antiwar.com ^ | April 15, 2002 | Justin Raimondo

[detsaoT]

There is a biblical quote someplace that states this question and answer. I don't recall it exactly but Jesus was asked to prove the existance of God by putting himself in harms way. The inference being that God would allow no harm to come to him. The answer was priceless. I don't recall it verbatim so I will not attempt a paraphrase. (Too much respect for the words to muck them up) Perhaps someone can put them on this thread.

The quote to which you refer originates from Satan's temptation of Christ in the desert. Both Satan and Christ knew that God existed, so it was not a matter of trying to prove or disprove so. The context and purpose of the discussion was (a) Satan tempting Christ to cast himself down to the Stones (killing himself), inferring that all of the Angels in heaven would prevent Christ from dying (which, we see from the Crucifixion, was a false inferrence), and (b) Christ rejecting the lies and distortions which Satan made (the text which Satan quoted did not say what he implied it did, but was a distortion of the orginal meaning - kinda like what the liberals in the Methodist and Episcopal church are doing today).

The entire episode can be found in Matthew Chapter 4, 1-11. That was one of the THREE temptations brought upon Christ directly by Satan himself.

:) ttt

[Cold Heat]

That's the one! Thanks.

[detsaoT]

(You beat me to it! - Should've put the whole context of the Temptation (vs 1-11) in, though...)

:) ttt

[weikel]

The actual god can't be the one of the Bible God would have to be eternal that I did prove( unless you can find a flaw with my logic) and thus not subject to sequential, transient emotions which god is in the Bible( " I thy lord thy God am a jealous God" etc). God could interfere for his own unfathomable reasons but I would tend to doubt that he would if we can set up the universe so that it runs itself the way he wants.

[TheHeterodoxConservative]

You're right, but I was trying desperately to be the first one to post it (and I was.) Your answer was better and more complete, though.

[TheHeterodoxConservative]

Sure thing. My Confirmation instruction (Lutheran), 30 some years ago, was, at the time, boring, repetitive, painful (literally, sometimes), but, I guess, effective. Once it's beat into you, you never forget.

Six Chief Parts, Table of Duties, Christian Questions With Their Answers. . . . used to have them all memorized, and they still come back, whenever needed, and some other times, too.

[AnalogReigns]

For the record, I'm an evangelical Christian, and not a dispensationalist. Most evangelicals of all stripes are though, and the largest Protestant denomination in America is (the Southern Baptists) and these people do not fit the category of "nutball" regardless of what this atheist thinks...

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Moa, Pol Pot, the most murderous leaders of all time (by a factor of what, 100 X???) were all atheists, correct?

[Cold Heat]

The point I was trying to make, (hard for many to accept) is that I believe that God does not mess with the small stuff. He has warned against tempting him with intentional misbehaviors. He has sent his words to be as a guide to life and if not believed he has stated the consequences.

He will wipe the picture off the canvas and start over.

[weikel]

Hitler was not an Athiest. Mussolinni does not belong in the same category as the others.

[detsaoT]

The actual god can't be the one of the Bible God would have to be eternal that I did prove( unless you can find a flaw with my logic) and thus not subject to sequential, transient emotions which god is in the Bible( " I thy lord thy God am a jealous God" etc). God could interfere for his own unfathomable reasons but I would tend to doubt that he would if we can set up the universe so that it runs itself the way he wants.

But even these supporting arguments can be undeniably asserted. You're NOT God, how do you know that he isn't Jealous? Or that He exists? (to refer to some of the other religious worldviews we've covered so far)... All of these assertions require some level of faith, logic be damned.

:) ttt

[weikel]

Maybe its possible for an eternal powerful being to be jealous but its not bloody likely. Thinking this is not the same as blind faith. As I said there is a possibility for there to be no "God" but that would mean the Universe itself was eternal and uncaused its an either/or proposition and the idea that time goes back forever is inconcieveable to me so I'm a Deist.

[detsaoT]

The point I was trying to make, (hard for many to accept) is that I believe that God does not mess with the small stuff. He has warned against tempting him with intentional misbehaviors. He has sent his words to be as a guide to life and if not believed he has stated the consequences. He will wipe the picture off the canvas and start over.

The purpose of documenting the Temptation, and the ultimate thing that this documentation proves, is that Christ Almighty was tempted as we were (though to an infinitely greater degree - Tempted by Satan himself), and unlike us, rose above the temptations brought before him (Godlike control over hunger (ignoring the fast that Christ was on), Godlike control over the Angelic Hosts (all while intentionally distorting and twisting the teachings of the prophets to infer that the Bible [Talmud] says something it did not), and Godlike control over the entire earth (so long as Christ bows down to Satan as the authority).

In all three Temptations, Christ rebuked Satan. I'm sure that, in the same position, none of us would be able to.

Insofar as what you've stated above, I'm not sure I understand (a) where it's coming from, and (b) where you're going with it, so it's tough for me to debate it. My gut instinct says that this is an incorrect interpretation of Scripture. If that is the case, a simple question:

Do you believe that the Scriptures, revealed to us by God through His servants, is absolutely correct? If not, what have your studies led to believe you is false in the Bible?

:) ttt

[Cold Heat]

I did not read all of JR's article, his words generally make me too angry but the premise that religion starts conflict and war is real.IMHO.

Since we have a democracy(representative republic actually) we change our leadership often enough to slow the debates and conflicts and give time for compromises.

Religions, on the other hand are more stagnent and prone to collecting power at the top and not changing. This is evident by the backlash of churches in the protestant religion (for example) who are severing their ties with the mother churches because of disagreements with the political views of the leaders of such churches.(hit them where it hurts, in the wallet)

That is what propted me to post on this thread, since it is a sore spot with me. (I digress) Now that I have totally lost my train of thought, I will quit! :-)

[detsaoT]

Maybe its possible for an eternal powerful being to be jealous but its not bloody likely. Thinking this is not the same as blind faith. As I said there is a possibility for there to be no "God" but that would mean the Universe itself was eternal and uncaused its an either/or proposition and the idea that time goes back forever is inconcieveable to me so I'm a Deist.

And I will stand by my argument that no matter how well we think we have thought out our positions on these matters, we ultimately base portions (large or small, depending) of our position on faith alone, as we, being mere mortals, are completely unable to undeniably confirm the cores of our positions.

In other words, we're both being religious and dogmatic about our beliefs. And there's nothing wrong with that.

:) ttt

[Cold Heat]

Ah! I see your confusion with me.

The answer is simple, I only believe about half of what I read. I question everything! Including the Bible.

Political motives(whether you amit them or not) were at work then, as they are now.

Some would call me foolish. I prefer to be practical. Don't ask me what I accept and what I donot, because I cannot state it that directly. Suffice it to say, This is why I listen not, to most interpreters and preachers. Everyone has a agenda.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

The true NUTCASE is Antiwar.com!!!! A bunch of Commie bedwetting liberals. To the group at "antiwar.com" I give this quote;

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

~~ John Stuart Mill ~~

For those who are interested ... here is the red heffer;

And, here is the quote from the Bible that people are referring to regarding the red heffer;

"Numbers 19:2-10"

"This is a requirement of the law that the Lord has commanded: Tell the Israelites to bring you a red heifer without defect or blemish and that has never been under a yoke. 3 Give it to Eleazar the priest; it is to be taken outside the camp and slaughtered in his presence. 4 Then Eleazar the priest is to take some of its blood on his finger and sprinkle it seven times toward the front of the Tent of Meeting. 5 While he watches, the heifer is to be burned-its hide, flesh, blood and offal. 6 The priest is to take some cedar wood, hyssop and scarlet wool and throw them onto the burning heifer. 7 After that, the priest must wash his clothes and bathe himself with water. He may then come into the camp, but he will be ceremonially unclean till evening. 8 The man who burns it must also wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he too will be unclean till evening. 9 "A man who is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer and put them in a ceremonially clean place outside the camp. They shall be kept by the Israelite community for use in the water of cleansing; it is for purification from sin. 10 The man who gathers up the ashes of the heifer must also wash his clothes, and he too will be unclean till evening. This will be a lasting ordinance both for the Israelites and for the aliens living among them."

I don't write it.. I read it. Far be it for me to interpret Gods words. My job is to obey His words. To believe. I'm 100 percent positive that believing in God, in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is the right way.

I'm also 100 percent positive that antiwar.com are a bunch of cowards. Their "way" has gotten us where we are today. I say to them.. thanks but no thanks. We've listened to their kind of liberal trash for too long. We are where we are today regarding our Nations security and the security of the World, because of cowardice like theirs.

This article is pure unadulterated bullcrap. Pun intended!!! (Trying to keep the "theme" thing goin here :o)

[detsaoT]

Ah! I see your confusion with me. The answer is simple, I only believe about half of what I read. I question everything! Including the Bible. Political motives(whether you amit them or not) were at work then, as they are now.

Have you ever witnessed the method by which the books which make up the Bible were copied throughout the centuries? It's quite amazing. People spent their entire lives doing nothing but copying scrolls, intricately and meticulously verifying that not a single letter was transcribed incorrectly (Hebrew, for example, can be represented as mathematical numerics as well as characters. Based on this, an extensive checksumming system was devised by which any scroll could be quickly compared with any other scroll to determine whether or not they are identical. We have similar technology using computers and the MD5 algorithm, for example..). Upon the discovery of a mistake, the scroll was generally destroyed and work was begun again, to ensure that the copy exactly matched the original.

I fail to see the political motives in this. The original texts are exactly the same today as they were when they were written (if you don't think so, learn Greek and study the texts themselves, instead of their english translations). Even if you don't approve of the process by which the Bible was compiled from the original texts, finds such as the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven to us that the methods used to copy the texts kept them unchanged for centuries.

Some would call me foolish. I prefer to be practical. Don't ask me what I accept and what I donot, because I cannot state it that directly. Suffice it to say, This is why I listen not, to most interpreters and preachers. Everyone has a agenda.

I will not go so far to call you foolish, unless you have not bothered to do any requisite research into your beliefs. I think you'll find lots of fascinating things out, regardless of whether or not you agree with me.

(And csn is still an excellent source for this type of background information, if you don't mind hearing it secondhand - just keep in mind that you can always go back to the texts referred to and check to see if the message matches up with the writings, which is what is important in validating ANY teaching you hear from someone else.)

After all, how do you know if what you're hearing is true, if you're unwilling to take the effort to investigate it? There's nothing wrong with suspecting everything. It's only when you suspect everything without investigating it that a problem begins to arise.

FReegards, friend. Don't let the Methodists' idiocy convince you that the core tenets of Christianity are false. Do your own legwork to come to or disprove THAT position.

:D ttt

[MissAmericanPie]

The author can kick and scream all the way to the last battle, he can accuse people of being nut balls, he can deny, evade, zig and zag, but he will not change the course anymore than he can change the course of the Mississippi River.

I am not sure about this, but isn't it at the sacrifice of the red heifer that every Jew in the entire world must go to Isreal for the pruification or they are no longer considered Jewish or something like that?

[tpaine]

Human fanatics cause war, regardless of the 'religion' to which they profess to devote themselves.

--- Arthur Koestler on fanaticism: ---

"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion. "

I hate to say it, bud, but if this statement WERE true, then the Roman Empire would still exist today. Furthermore, if this statement WERE true (rather than just being an opinion), agencies like the UN would be effective in stopping war.

Of course it's an opinion, why would you think otherwise? - Strange reaction. - As are your comments on Rome & the U.N.

For, if it WERE true that the only thing preventing us from having GLOBAL PEACE was national identity, then we would've LONG ago been consolidated into one of the MANY large empires which have risen throughout the centuries (Persia, Greece, Rome, the United Kingdom, etc). Even with the advent of such super-entities as mentioned, internal fractionalism and strife STILL occurred, regardless of the fact that there was a Distinct Unifying Authority over all of the citizens in the jurisdiction thereof.

National identity? - Thats all you got from Koeslers 'opinion' on fanatics? Weird.

Therefore, I think whomever you quoted from is wrong.

Sure, --- that must be it. Thanks, bud, for your own rather devoted opinion.

[Cold Heat]

I do not question the honest work of the monks, etc. who wrote the words. I question the compiling and re,re,compiling of the scriptures and the word of mouth stories they were based on.

I have no doubt about the general gist of the stories and the good that they do for humanity.

I am simply a rebellious child who asks a lot of why's!