I am an Atheist and always have been.

RambleTamble said:
He also cited dialogue from from the movie Pulp Fiction as being the word of god! :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Wow, Pulp Fiction was an outstanding movie but I sure didn't get a religious vibe from it. Although I suspect that the drug dealers who stole the drugs from Marsellus were likely praying fast and furiously when they met Vincent and Jules. 😬
 
Last edited:
Pepper said:
This pope is not responsible for the church history. I think Leo is a great honest and smart man. Your telling him to leave the conversation is absurd. Finally someone is doing the job he was elected to do. ❤️leo
Click to expand...
My piddling opinion is no threat to the Pope, or to anyone. But if any member would like to step forward and tell me they are righteously offended, I will withdraw the remark.
 
never meant or implied that I had the last word.
Warrigal said:
I made it my business when I was a Sunday School teacher of three very intelligent boys to learn as much as I could about Islam. When I asked them at the beginning of the calendar year what they would like to learn they said "other religions".

So, I began the year with the three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and finally Islam.

The first topic included slavery in Egypt and the laws that covered just about every aspect of Jewish life. We visited the Great Synagogue in Sydney and listened to a speaker explaining elements of Judaism. The architecture of the Great Synagogue is derived from England, not the Middle East, and there appeared to be a very small choir loft at the front of the synagogue. One of the boys asked about the instruments that were played and was surprised to learn that there are none. Singers are unaccompanied because of strict rules about not working on the Sabbath. Playing an instrument is considered labour. They learnt about the scrolls made of silk on which the Torah is inscribed and the many laws that every Jew must do their best to remeber and follow.

For the Christianity section we studied Paul's story of his conversion on the road to Damascus and his journeys around and across the Mediterranean. To minister to Gentiles Paul needed to adapt to their ways to a degree, including eating foods that would have affronted observant Jews. This time the excursion was to a Chinese restaurant after church for yum cha. This was to drive home the point how difficult it can be to adapt to very difficult cultures, with different ideas about what is religiously acceptable or otherwise taboo. The first dish to appear was chicken feet and the boys tucked in enthusiastically, so perhaps not as difficult as we might imagine.

I also took them down to the local police station to see the lock up area. It was not a pleasant place to be confined in. It was cold, bleak and stank of urine. Paul was imprisoned more than once by the Romans but was not deterred from his missionary work. Even when given the chance to walk free after an earthquake rattled the gaol door open, he did not. He stayed, and his gaoler was so impressed (and relieved) that he became a Christian on the spot.

For Islam I looked for teaching material prepared for children in Islamic schools. I did not trust sites where Islam was interpreted by outsiders. We learnt about the life of the Prophet and his revelations that were written down by scribes, since he was illiterate. The lessons covered religious obligations such as praying 5 times a day and the ritual associated with this. As with Judaism, foods are either halal (allowed) or haram (forbidden). Cultural differences such polygamy and harsh physical punishments for stealing or blasphemy were covered briefly.

Overall, we looked for similarities more than we focussed on differences.
Click to expand...
And there are so many similarities. We all funnel back to a point where we connect. We are all connected and yet we are not. God's name may be spoken differently but it is the same God. The one. The I AM.
This is interesting in the old testament. David did indeed eat sacrificed foods yet was not cursed or killed. He and his men were hungry. So they ate. Though it would appear that the the rules were violated God looked at it differently and said so.
Warrigal said:
I made it my business when I was a Sunday School teacher of three very intelligent boys to learn as much as I could about Islam. When I asked them at the beginning of the calendar year what they would like to learn they said "other religions".

So, I began the year with the three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and finally Islam.

The first topic included slavery in Egypt and the laws that covered just about every aspect of Jewish life. We visited the Great Synagogue in Sydney and listened to a speaker explaining elements of Judaism. The architecture of the Great Synagogue is derived from England, not the Middle East, and there appeared to be a very small choir loft at the front of the synagogue. One of the boys asked about the instruments that were played and was surprised to learn that there are none. Singers are unaccompanied because of strict rules about not working on the Sabbath. Playing an instrument is considered labour. They learnt about the scrolls made of silk on which the Torah is inscribed and the many laws that every Jew must do their best to remeber and follow.

For the Christianity section we studied Paul's story of his conversion on the road to Damascus and his journeys around and across the Mediterranean. To minister to Gentiles Paul needed to adapt to their ways to a degree, including eating foods that would have affronted observant Jews. This time the excursion was to a Chinese restaurant after church for yum cha. This was to drive home the point how difficult it can be to adapt to very difficult cultures, with different ideas about what is religiously acceptable or otherwise taboo. The first dish to appear was chicken feet and the boys tucked in enthusiastically, so perhaps not as difficult as we might imagine.

I also took them down to the local police station to see the lock up area. It was not a pleasant place to be confined in. It was cold, bleak and stank of urine. Paul was imprisoned more than once by the Romans but was not deterred from his missionary work. Even when given the chance to walk free after an earthquake rattled the gaol door open, he did not. He stayed, and his gaoler was so impressed (and relieved) that he became a Christian on the spot.

For Islam I looked for teaching material prepared for children in Islamic schools. I did not trust sites where Islam was interpreted by outsiders. We learnt about the life of the Prophet and his revelations that were written down by scribes, since he was illiterate. The lessons covered religious obligations such as praying 5 times a day and the ritual associated with this. As with Judaism, foods are either halal (allowed) or haram (forbidden). Cultural differences such polygamy and harsh physical punishments for stealing or blasphemy were covered briefly.

Overall, we looked for similarities more than we focussed on differences.
Click to expand...
There is much that defies simple answers. There is much that makes no sense. But life is full of stories about drive and desire. Super human effort that defies understanding. Where faith, hope and desire come together and produce the results that we all love to read about. To me it is the essence of who God is and what he desires of his creation. Not simply to believe but to feel his presence. It's not about obeying rules. It is about acknowledging his presence. Feeling him. Knowing that you are not alone.

Regarding the food eaten I found the following in scripture that explains much better than I can.



In 1 Samuel 21, David is on the run from Saul. David comes to the town of Nob, where the tabernacle was, and meets with Ahimelech the priest. David asks for food, but Ahimelech has nothing but the showbread, which was consecrated for use in the tabernacle. Despite the law that reserved the showbread exclusively for the sons of Aaron (Leviticus 24:9), “the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away” (1 Samuel 21:6).

The issue of David eating the showbread comes up in Jesus’ response to the Pharisees when they accuse Him of breaking the Sabbath. His disciples had been picking some kernels of grain and eating them as they walked through a field (Matthew 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5). The Pharisees objected: “Look!” they said to Jesus. “Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:2).

In response, Jesus cites 1 Samuel 21: “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests” (Matthew 12:3–4). Jesus seems to use what David did regarding the showbread as a justification for what His disciples were doing. If that is the case, then David must have been in the right. There are several views on if or why it was allowable for David to eat the showbread.

Some have postulated that, since this was the old bread for the priests to eat, not fresh bread currently in use, the priests could give it to someone else. However, there is nothing in the law regarding the showbread that indicates that the priests were allowed to give it away—they were supposed to eat it (Leviticus 24:8–9).

Later in the narrative of 1 Samuel, Saul accuses the priest of “inquiring of God” for David (1 Samuel 22:13). This fact leads some to suggest that the priest asked for and received special permission from the Lord to give the bread to David. However, the text is not clear that the priest did actually inquire of the Lord for David, much less that the inquiry was about bread and that the Lord responded affirmatively. This view goes beyond anything even remotely suggested in the text.

Third, some suggest that, in the case of an emergency, the ceremonial rules could be set aside for the “greater good.” David seems to appeal to the priest on this basis, and, ultimately, this may have been why the priest gave him the bread. The priest did make sure that David and his men had “kept themselves from women” (1 Samuel 21:4–5), as sexual relations would have made them ceremonially unclean for the day (see Leviticus 15:18).

Finally, it is possible that both David and the priests simply have an inadequate understanding of the law. They both seem to assume that, if David’s men are in a state of ritual purity, then eating the showbread would be proper. (Of course, it is also possible that this was simply a quick justification that would not have held up under scrutiny.)

If Jesus had never commented on this incident, there would be little question about David’s actions. In fleeing for his life, he lied to a priest, tricked him perhaps, and ate bread that was not meant for him. While David was a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14), he had many failures and shortcomings, and he is not an example to follow in every instance.

The words of Jesus seem to make clear that David was violating the law by eating the showbread. Jesus says it was unlawful: “He went into the house of God, and he and his companions broke the law by eating the sacred loaves of bread” (Matthew 12:4, NLT). Taken at face value, these words show that David was a lawbreaker.

On the other hand, it is possible that Jesus was using irony when He said David did what was “not lawful.” Jesus could have been using what today we call “air quotes.” In the next verse, Jesus also says that the priests “desecrate” the Sabbath in the performance of their Sabbath-day duties (Matthew 12:5). It is obvious that, when Jesus uses the word desecrate, He is speaking tongue-in-cheek. Could He be doing the same thing with the description not lawful in verse 4?

As Jesus pointed out, priests work on the Sabbath, so, clearly, there are some exceptions to the Sabbath-day rule (Matthew 12:5). Could this also imply that there are some “common sense” exceptions to other laws—such as the one regarding the special bread that David ate? In Matthew 12:7 Jesus quotes from the Old Testament: “I desire mercy not sacrifice” (Hosea 6:6). This suggests that alleviating human suffering is more important than following the letter of the law. Yes, David broke the letter of the law, but those in need received mercy.

In a parallel passage, Jesus states, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27). In other words, the Sabbath was designed to serve and benefit man, not the other way around. Caring for human needs takes precedence over keeping the letter of the law. Jesus uses this principle of caring for others as a rationale for healing on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9–14). This line of reasoning corresponds with the third view, above: in cases of emergency or to extend mercy, the ceremonial rules can be bent. There’s no need to stand on ceremony when someone is in distress.

In the same context, Jesus also points out that He is Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:8; Luke 6:5). That is, He is the One who makes the rules—a definite claim to deity. As Lord of the Sabbath, He can determine what is allowable on the Sabbath. Certainly, God could have granted David special permission to eat the showbread, just as Jesus could grant special permission for the disciples to pick and eat grain on the Sabbath.

Jesus’ main point seems to be that the Pharisees are being hypocritical nitpickers. What David did was not lawful, yet they saw David as a great hero. What Jesus’ disciples did was lawful since they were not truly harvesting grain but simply plucking some grains to munch on as they walked along. The Pharisees did not condemn David for actually breaking the law, but they were willing to condemn Jesus for doing something that was actually allowable.

If the Pharisees justified David in eating the showbread because of the “greater good,” then they should have no problem with what Jesus did. If the Pharisees justified David on the premise that God could have given him special permission, then they should have no problem with Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, who had the authority to make exceptions. If they had no problem with David, a flawed man doing something unlawful, then they should have no problem with David’s greater Son doing something they did not like, but which was legal. Ultimately, Jesus’ commentary is not on what David did but on the Pharisees’ opinion of David versus their treatment of Jesus, the Son of David.

It seems clear that, when David ate the showbread, he broke the law, as he did many other times in other ways. God overlooked David’s sins in view of the final sacrifice that would be offered on the cross (Romans 3:25–26).

There are many places in the Old Testament where the biblical characters do things that are neither condemned nor commended. In such instances, we must be careful about using their actions as patterns to follow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top