Jesus was a man and is Lord of all. Christianity is a set of many different philosophies based on his teachings.

It's not an interpretation, Dyshade, it's literal. That is what is literally meant by that passage, "If you are breaking bread with Gentiles, you should eat shit."

And here's some of the Sermon on Mount... because I love it.

The last part of that passage is directed at people like Jordyn, it means you are loved by God, or blessed, even when christians abuse you or say cruel things to you in God's name.

Gentiles were, more or less, considered enemies of Isreal. In the time of Roman occupation, zealots were taking every opportunity they had to kill Roman soldiers, officials and even Jews who compromised with Romans. Here, I believe, Jesus is talking to them, but also to all of us. This, Dyshade, is how Jesus rejects the notion that breaking bread with Gentiles makes you about as good as someone who eats shit.

The meaning of someone who is a Gentile is much more significant than just someone who is not a Jew. For christianity, because Jesus welcomed Gentiles to the table, "gentile" is anyone who is not a christian. Evangelicals will take passages like yours from Ezekiel and interpret to mean that they are better than non-christians. In reality, though, Christ deliberately rejected that idea.

What about this Guy??

"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (II Kings 18:27)

Comment
Whatever moral lesson an adult might gain from such questionable verses, one can only wonder. How many parents realize that their children, who might come across such filthy passages, could get the wrong message?

Any mention of eating feces and drinking urine in any secular writing would get considered obscene and sick by any righteous minded Christian. Then why should it not receive the same consideration if found in a bible? Might we ask what artistic or social value this verse presents?

Note the word "piss" stands as one of the censored vulgar words of the public television industry. If Christians wish to censor such language from secular sources, then it behooves them to give themselves as an example and thus censor the obscene verses from their own Bible.

(See also Isaiah 36:12)

More "shit" verses---

"If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts; and one shall take you away with it." (Malachi 2:2-

Comment
Amazingly God appears to have a fecal fetish.

This commandment to the priests told by the Lord gives example of the Satanic threats of curses He seems to enjoy. What should one think of a God that would smear feces upon the faces of his creations? Such vulgarity can hardly give good example to high morality.

Or how about Gods love of the penis--
"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (Deuteronomy 23:1-2)

Without a penis you may as well accept hell.

Take it up with them. I live in a world where it is not hypocrisy to be discerning.

You're really just bringing up a lot of passages out of context and expecting them to mean something.

No. The words themselves are derogatory. Most Christians would look down on a man who said "piss" and yet they accept it in thier bible??? That is hypocrisy.

I have more. What do you want the entire chapter so they are "in" "context"??

I see christians "including you" use passages out of context and expect them to be meaningful. Why am I not allowed to do it??

Because quoting the sermon on the mount is completely different from quoting a small passage from the middle of a story.

so god is a better person than Many of those who claim to follow his way and the path of christ?

i can agree with that...

Not at all.

So I will either expect no more Bible quotes out of context-- IE I expect the entire story-- may as well toss in the entire Bible for it to be wholly in context-- or we can go on the passages themselves. Your choice.

No, Dyshade, there is a difference. The Sermon on the mount is a story that everyone knows, or should at least be familiar with. It is a deliberate set of instructions that doesn't require the whole story of Christ's arrival and gathering of people in order to be told and understood. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" doesn't need context. "You should eat shit" does because in every single passage you have quoted, God is angry and essentially busting someone's chops.

if it was indeed god who said that, and not those who wrote it and then translated it...the latest watchtower has a fascinating article about the validity of the bible and it being god's words and all...

but how do these people know it was their god who was speaking to them?

Because they're monotheists.

So you condone using such vehement language??

Love thy nieghbor as thyself. That could be taken many different ways. This is just hypothetical but how do I know that does not mean I should masturbate my nieghbor like I masturebate myself??? eh?? eh??

Context is a tricky thing. you should not start using it in arguments unless it is all about a statement you yourself made. Because your contextual perception of a statement could differ from mine yet both would be just as valid because niether one of us really know what the author really meant.

It doesn't change the fact that the Sermon on the Mount is a place where context matters little, since they are instructions for all of God's people. However, in the stories you used, which mostly all came from Ezekiel, by the way, God is not giving instructions for all of his people--She's not even giving instructions. She's merely chastising.

How do you know God is a she?? You know almost every other Christian out there will deem you a heretic for that idea???

Not that you are really that much of a christian.

No. It is not chastisement. That one about eating shit is all about eating shit. What god would force its people to eat shit for whatever reason when they have absolute power??? What kind of punishment is that??? Is that the form a forgiving god takes??

Because it's just as reasonable to refer to God as She as it is to refer to God as He. And no, I get a lot of my terminology from my rector, who was raised Baptist, and my church is one of the largest in city. No one there seems to be making a fuss about it.

I am as christian as you are hermetic.

Take it up with people who buy into Ezekiel. Me, I don't really see much value in a lot of parts of the Old Testament.

I did not mean you are not a christian. I just meant that as my views go on them I donot see you as a staunch one and therefore do not view you as one. My perception regardless of your stance

Yes you are

Why defend it than???

I'm not defending it, I'm merely adding my view to the conversation.

Oh ok.

Sounds good. Do you know why they would suggest that they eat shit?? It sounds kinda gross to me... and why would it still be in the bible??

This is one of the reasons I cannot take that book seriously. That god is the same god as now if existing so why all the eat shit and piss talking???

I just do not get it. Were the old hebrews really a bunch of sickos or what??