When it comes to history of the world....ya need authors who have been beyond the eastern Mediterranean ...and need to go back further than 6k years.
I assume you are referring to "males only".In the Early Church, gentile converts to what was effectively a Jewish-Christian church were expected to get circumcised, according to the Law. Circumcision was the badge of membership. One needed to be Jewish to be Christian..
it does not. it encourages one to read literature produced by their house of justice (with all its sendeths and giveths) which gives its opinion as to how all religions are wrong and only theirs is correct, making even buddha into a messenger of god.I believe the Baha'i faith encourages the reading of other scriptures, and discourages proselytizing
and if you don't, then eternal hell.And, if you belong to the Messiah, you are Abraham’s family. You stand to inherit the promise" (Galatians 3:28-29)
Does that bother you that people believe that?and if you don't, then eternal hell.
Yes, as one might guess, a contentious point among the many rules the gentile was obliged to follow.I assume you are referring to "males only".
Oh yes.Can one circumcise the heart?
Quite, a point argued quite forcibly by St Paul in his letter to the church in Rome, Chapter 2:25-29 and on.It is the 'heart' that leads us to faith, and faith that leads us to good deeds.
..so circumcision, in this context, is as in purification .. purification of the heart."Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked" (Deuteronomy 10:16).
"And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." (Deuteronomy 30:6)
"Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: lest my fury come forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of your doings." (Jeremiah 4:4).
Really? I thought they did encourage reading other scriptures?it does not. it encourages one to read literature produced by their house of justice (with all its sendeths and giveths) which gives its opinion as to how all religions are wrong and only theirs is correct, making even buddha into a messenger of god.
it does not. it encourages one to read literature produced by their house of justice (with all its sendeths and giveths) which gives its opinion as to how all religions are wrong and only theirs is correct, making even buddha into a messenger of god.
No, not really. I offer a thought from Baha'u'llah on this OP about a New Creation.Really? I thought they did encourage reading other scriptures?
Compliments of the season, Aup. Hope your shoulder is repairing.
Do things start to get a bit 'Christmasy' this time of year around the parts of the world that you live ?
You keep imputing things under question marks that are not correct.Ok.
In that case I would not dream of commenting on passages from the Qur'an or Bhagavad Gita without having made the effort to read them. And even then I would prefer to phrase my comments as questions, inviting and deferring to the opinions of people who know them well and understand their nuance far better than I myself.
I would regard it as disrespectful.
Whatever ...
As you keep doing, but as I keep saying, it doesn't really address the point I was making.No, not really. I offer a thought from Baha'u'llah on this OP about a New Creation.
OK. Nevertheless, it's a distinction the rest of the world finds reasonable, so I'll stick with it.
This was in response to the following: "Conscious awareness reflected in any ancient text is not really an accurate reflection of reality."Then how come the edifice of Philosophy still stands on the foundations laid by the 'ancients'.
The arts and sciences still happily utilise the same lexicon?
Plato and Aristotle? The poetry of Sappho? The plays of Terence ... still models for this age ...
Have you considered the psychological insight that underpins the likes of Homer, the Greek myths?
I think they had profound insights into the human condition.
OK, well the ancients believed in spiritual forces for good and ill – and they mistakenly attributed too great an effect to them – but that doesn't disprove them outright, and angelology and the understanding of spirits has moved on since ...
... And you believe in Messengers ... so where essentially is the difference?
it does. it is the biggest example of exclusivity, not going with the current human values.Does that bother you that people believe that?