100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Do you think that.... | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
at the heart of the matter, for ME
condone: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless the argument centers around a subjective evalution of whether something is 'bad' or not similar to how the bible CONDONED divorce, it did CONDONE slavery but it did not condone ANY AND EVERY forms of slavery , just as it did not condone ANY reason for a divorce,,, so if DIVORCE is bad, than SLAVERY is bad, relatively speaking but being as how I dont see DIVORCE(in and of itself) as bad, neither do I see slavery that way it is as UNDESIRABLE as a paycut , but it has no moral value as being a 'bad' thing,,,to me anyhow |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
So let me get this straight. 1.)Regarding modern society... Consent, love, and care are never bad regardless of circumstance, because they are relative to the societal standards. but... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Is that right; is that you mean? Msharmony: correct creative: So sometimes consent, love, and care are bad in the Bible? Msharmony: no, sometimes people can do things with the intent of love and care and consent, and still be making a 'bad' decision(my definition of what modern culture calls a 'bad' thing) creative: Your changing your mind then. Msharmony: nope, just discussing the many possible CIRCUMSTANCES within the institution of slavery Look at #2. Are you changing you mind? Do you still agree with this... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Thu 01/20/11 12:35 PM
|
|
creative:
So let me get this straight. 1.)Regarding modern society... Consent, love, and care are never bad regardless of circumstance, because they are relative to the societal standards. but... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Is that right; is that you mean? Msharmony: correct creative: So sometimes consent, love, and care are bad in the Bible? Msharmony: no, sometimes people can do things with the intent of love and care and consent, and still be making a 'bad' decision(my definition of what modern culture calls a 'bad' thing) creative: Your changing your mind then. Msharmony: nope, just discussing the many possible CIRCUMSTANCES within the institution of slavery Look at #2. Are you changing you mind? Do you still agree with this... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. the double negative threw me, I dont believe consent, nor love, nor care can be 'bad',,,I do believe there are situations(based upon biblical instruction) which are 'bad' even when there is consent, love, and care incest would be one, false worship would be another, promiscuous behavior another, homosexual relations another,,,,etc,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
Ok. So let me get this straight. We're discussing whether or not biblical slavery is immoral. 1. The facts in evidence are biblical verses that are brought forth which clearly state that a woman and children must remain with the slave-owner unless the male slave commits the rest of his life to slavery However, you reject that that was true about biblical slavery, and you base that rejection upon another source. Msharmony: no and yes, I dont reject that it HAPPENED during biblical history I reject that it was a MANDATE of slavery in general creative: You don't reject that what happened? Msharmony: that there was a culture in which the women and children remained with the slave owner What about the fact that Moses purported to have been giving instructions from God to that culture about those mandates? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what about it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
So let me get this straight. 1.)Regarding modern society... Consent, love, and care are never bad regardless of circumstance, because they are relative to the societal standards. but... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Is that right; is that you mean? Msharmony: correct creative: So sometimes consent, love, and care are bad in the Bible? Msharmony: no, sometimes people can do things with the intent of love and care and consent, and still be making a 'bad' decision(my definition of what modern culture calls a 'bad' thing) creative: Your changing your mind then. Msharmony: nope, just discussing the many possible CIRCUMSTANCES within the institution of slavery Look at #2. Are you changing you mind? Do you still agree with this... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. This statement is absolutely true. "love, and care are NOT never bad". Notice NOT NEVER bad, that would mean they are always good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look at #2. Are you changing you mind? Do you still agree with this...
2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. the double negative threw me, I dont believe consent, nor love, nor care can be 'bad',,,I do believe there are situations(based upon biblical instruction) which are 'bad' even when there is consent, love, and care... Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
So let me get this straight. 1.)Regarding modern society... Consent, love, and care are never bad regardless of circumstance, because they are relative to the societal standards. but... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Is that right; is that you mean? Msharmony: correct creative: So sometimes consent, love, and care are bad in the Bible? Msharmony: no, sometimes people can do things with the intent of love and care and consent, and still be making a 'bad' decision(my definition of what modern culture calls a 'bad' thing) creative: Your changing your mind then. Msharmony: nope, just discussing the many possible CIRCUMSTANCES within the institution of slavery Look at #2. Are you changing you mind? Do you still agree with this... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. This statement is absolutely true. "love, and care are NOT never bad". Notice NOT NEVER bad, that would mean they are always good. not that it matters, but it would mean that the condition of NEVER BAD is not met, NEVER BAD would mean ALWAYS GOOD so NOT never bad would mean NOT always good |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
So let me get this straight. 1.)Regarding modern society... Consent, love, and care are never bad regardless of circumstance, because they are relative to the societal standards. but... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Is that right; is that you mean? Msharmony: correct creative: So sometimes consent, love, and care are bad in the Bible? Msharmony: no, sometimes people can do things with the intent of love and care and consent, and still be making a 'bad' decision(my definition of what modern culture calls a 'bad' thing) creative: Your changing your mind then. Msharmony: nope, just discussing the many possible CIRCUMSTANCES within the institution of slavery Look at #2. Are you changing you mind? Do you still agree with this... 2.)Regarding the Bible... Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. Consent, love, and care are NOT never bad regardless of circumstance because it is relative to the instructions given throughout it's words. This statement is absolutely true. "love, and care are NOT never bad". Notice NOT NEVER bad, that would mean they are always good. not that it matters, but it would mean that the condition of NEVER BAD is not met, NEVER BAD would mean ALWAYS GOOD so NOT never bad would mean NOT always good Yes, good point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I disagree. If Christianity were about life, reward would not come after death, sweetestgirl wrote: many rewards are evident in the corporeal life - rewards come everyday in small miracles that happen everyday. but dragoness, many Christians, myself included, are weak in our knowledge of doctrine that is needed to really address your questions academically but to me the knowledge of doctrine is not as important as the behavioral aspects -to lead a life based on Jesus' teaching in the NEW Testament- the call to love- to forgiveness because we are men not divine- the call to seek peace with one's neighbor and follow the golden rule - I don't really much care about the rest of it What you say here Sweet is exceedingly true. I would personally venture to say that the overwhelming majority of people who claim to be "Christians" approach the religion very much in the same way that you describe here. They don't even question the Old Testament as being the "word of God". They are even told that it's not their place to question the "word of God". After all, "How arrogant is that?", they often suggest. They really push hard for everyone to just accept the assumption that the Bible is indeed the "word of God", and they try to focus on the things that you've just mentioned: In other words, don't worry about the details, just accept Jesus Christ as your savior, try to live the best life you can, support the church and the religion, and don't ask a lot of questions! To renounce the religion, is to renounce Jesus as "Lord", etc. And that's a big no-no! But the truth is that if a person really examines these biblical stories in any sincere depth they are going to find major problems with it. The very idea that Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb of God" sent to be crucified to pay for our sins as a "perfect sacrificial lamb", itself stands upon the shoulders of a very acceptance that "God" is somehow appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place. The Bible is actually quite contradictory in this if you study it well. There are places in the Bible where these scriptures are clearly stating that God is "appeased by" or accepts as "atonement for son" the blood sacrificing of highly pure animals. However, there are also places in the biblical scriptures where God is actually questioning where people ever got that idea from in the first place. So truly, if you are worshiping a religion and you aren't even familiar with the doctrine upon which it stands, then truly all you are doing is going along with social conventions. You're just accepting that it's "must be true" or all these preaches and churches wouldn't be preaching it so much. But in truth even the clergy of churches often disagree with each other on what these stories have to say, etc. In fact, like you, I had originally accepted this religion with open arms. After all my very own parents told me that it was true. All the adults at our church and the preachers, all acted like it was serious stuff, and it's the non-believers who are "In the dark". I believed them! Yet at the same time I noticed that even the preachers themselves would have disagreements about various things. Moreover, when I asked sincere questions I was often met with answers like, "We just need to have faith that God knows the answer". Because clearly the preacher had no good answer himself. Well, fortunately for me, I was also taught that the bible contains all the answers. So I went looking for them myself within the bible. I was not looking to renounce the bible. On the contrary, I sincerely believed that it did indeed contain all the answer, just like I was taught to believe. So I expected to find the answers and be able to help the preachers and others better understand the Bible since they obviously appear to be confused and concerned about various things themselves. Well what I discovered is that the bible does not contain answers. On the contrary, the more I studied it the more contradictions and questions I had. And trying to find answers was like a dog chasing its own tail. What I soon realized is that the biblical picture as it is being held up by the Christian religion simply cannot possibly be true as is. I also realized that it is extremely unlikely that Jesus was a "sacrificial lamb of any god" sent to pay for the sins of mankind. At best he was a very wise man, probably educated in the moral and spiritual values of Mahayana Buddhism. Jesus actually renounced many things that are in the Torah or Old Testament, and he was indeed crucified for blaspheme. I don't think he ever expected to be "officially" crucified. In fact, he wasn't according to the legend. Pilate himself exonerated Jesus of blaspheme and said, "I find no fault with this man". It was an unruly crowd (probably incited by angry Pharisees whom Jesus had publicly renounced as hypocrites) who had Jesus crucified. It was a freak thing, and I'm sure Jesus never expected such a thing. Left to the officials Jesus was capable of exonerating himself of charges of blaspheme because he was most likely a pantheist, and not claiming to be the son of the God of Abraham like the scriptures claim. In fact, keep in mind also, that nary a word from Jesus is contained in the Bible. Jesus never wrote down anything. The entire New Testament is nothing more than hearsay rumors about a man who lived and died actually several decades before those "New Testament Rumors" were even written. So, truly, you should question this religion before you just accept it on totally 'blind faith'. Especially if you're going to support the "organized religion" (i.e. the very label of "Christianity") Because in truth "Christianity" doesn't represent Jesus. Christianity represents the myth that Jesus was the "only begotten son of the God of the Old Testament who was sent to be the sacrificial lamb of God to pay for the sins of man". That's what Christianity represents, and that demands that the entire Old Testament be accepted as the "Word of God" right along with Jesus. But that's a fallacy. Jesus was not the son of the God of Abraham. The God of Abraham was a myth no different from Zeus. 
Jesus was probably a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva, which would have been quite reasonable in those day. Many "Jews" were mystics at that time period. So the bottom line is that although you'd like to support the moral philosophy of "Jesus", by supporting "Christianity" you're actually supporting the anti-thesis of Jesus. This is what sincere Christians truly need to understand.
But the truth is that if a person really examines these biblical stories in any sincere depth they are going to find major problems with it. The very idea that Jesus was the "sacrificial lamb of God" sent to be crucified to pay for our sins as a "perfect sacrificial lamb", itself stands upon the shoulders of a very acceptance that "God" is somehow appeased by blood sacrifices in the first place. The Bible is actually quite contradictory in this if you study it well. There are places in the Bible where these scriptures are clearly stating that God is "appeased by" or accepts as "atonement for son" the blood sacrificing of highly pure animals. However, there are also places in the biblical scriptures where God is actually questioning where people ever got that idea from in the first place. No problem or contradiction here. God didn't want them sacrificing animals for forgiveness, he wanted them just not to do what they were asking forgiveness for. He would accept these sacrifices though because that was the only way for a person(s) to show their sincerity of asking. It kept people from saying vein words just in hopes to butter him up to get their way. It put action into what they were asking and saying. As the saying goes, actions speak louder then words. The reason "blood" sacrifices were to be done is because blood is the life line, without blood NO being besides plants could live/survive. That includes eating of the blood eg., meats or the blood in your body. So again it showed much more sincerity into what they were asking, they were willing to give up something so important it had to have been true or else they wouldn't sacrifice their best mule, bull, ect. Well, clearly you're happy with that view. Personally I'm not. To begin with I don't see where it holds an drop of water. It makes no sense, IMHO, to claim that these blood sacrifices are a "demonstration of sincerity". To begin that flies in the face of the idea that this God supposedly knows what's in the hearts of men. Such a God would have no need for any "demonstrations of sincerity". Your explanation suggests that God can't tell whether a person is sincere or not other than through their actions. Moreover, an insincere person would easily sacrifice an animal to pay for their sins. No skin off their nose! So how would this be a demonstration of sincerity anyway? Anybody could do it, even the most insincere at heart. As far as I'm concerned a truly wise God would have people do something that requires far more dedication and doesn't involve the needless slaughtering of an animal. He could have had them meditate and pray for a solid week to gain repentance. Or, better yet, have them do some sort of community service for a specified period of time. Helping out other people in the tribe at the same time. Now that would truly be positive and constructive, and demonstrate a far higher degree of sincerity than merely sacrificing an animal. So I don't buy into your personal theories and interpretations. As far as I can see they are nothing more than feeble attempts to make excuses for something that's truly inexcusable in the first place. You have no choice but to support the things of the Bible because that's your goal. So your hands are tied. You're stuck with having to defend the indefensible. But the truth is that your "explanations" are not satisfying, they fall far short of justifying these biblical notions, IMHO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
creative:
However, you reject that that was true about biblical slavery, and you base that rejection upon another source. Msharmony: no and yes, I dont reject that it HAPPENED during biblical history I reject that it was a MANDATE of slavery in general creative: You don't reject that what happened? Msharmony: that there was a culture in which the women and children remained with the slave owner creative: What about the fact that Moses purported to have been giving instructions from God to that culture about those mandates? what about it? My argument is that biblical slavery is immoral. Your objection was that biblical slavery was voluntary, therefore not immoral. I quoted biblical scripture from Exodus to be put forth as facts in evidence which clearly show God mandating through Moses(if we are to believe the Bible) that in order for a male slave to remain with his family, he must give up lifelong freedom. You rejected this by claiming that that was not mandated, based upon evidence found outside of the Bible, further claiming - presumably that is - that God did not mandate the evidence that I put forth, but that it just was a part of the culture. That's what about it. Either you believe that God instructed Moses, and that Moses instructed the culture, thereby proving as conclusively as possible that God mandated life-long terms, or based upon another source, you reject what the Bible claims in order to maintain that slavery was somehow moral. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Msharmony:
the double negative threw me, I dont believe consent, nor love, nor care can be 'bad',,,I do believe there are situations(based upon biblical instruction) which are 'bad' even when there is consent, love, and care... If there are bad situations in the Bible that are based upon biblical instruction, then the instruction must be bad. If the instruction comes from Moses, and we are to believe the Bible, then the instruction came from God. If the instruction is bad and it came from God, then God's instruction is bad(according to the Bible that is). How do you reconcile that Ms.? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rest my case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rest my case.
What "case"? You're still arguing a mistranslation... You hold the position that everything in the Bible is "commanded by God... You have yet to provide any evidence except for mistranslated verses, ignoring what it actually wirtten there.... Case DISMISSED..... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rest my case.
What "case"? You're still arguing a mistranslation... You hold the position that everything in the Bible is "commanded by God... You have yet to provide any evidence except for mistranslated verses, ignoring what it actually wirtten there.... Case DISMISSED..... What exactly WAS written there? The Old Testament is somewhat believable for authenticity, but the New One could have been anything as written originally. The translations skew the meaning, as there could not be a direct translation between texts that were written almost two thousand years ago at the least, and modern English. A word or two mistranslated, and the whole paragraph lost its meaning. For instance, consider the lillies. No. Consider the winds. "The wind drove their ships far." In Arameic, or Hebrew, or whatever, the word "wind" also meant -- I am not kidding -- trade. So whas it the lure of hoping for good trade, which was a conscious action, or the fate of being driven far by strong gales? Or gails? The choice is of uttermost importance: One indicates direct action by the sailors, in good mood, full of hope, the other, a fateful disaster that had the foreboding of coming hardship, even death, to the sailors. Which is it? How do you see it in the translation? Most people don't even know this was the case, but they believe the Bible as if were true. These people don't even know what they believe. Their beliefs have very little to do with what's in the Bible. Another mistranslation, which was done at least two thousand years ago or more, not between an ancient language and our modern language, but between a very ancent language, and a newer language, Arameic: "There will be son born to a virgin." In the language of the original text, it turns out that "virgin woman" and "young woman" were completely equivalent. So was the virgin birth expected? Or any other birth to a barely pubescent (pardon the pun) woman could have been taken as the birth of a King? We don't know how to read the Bible, and I say that leads to almost all arguments over the divine inspiration we get from it getting rendered moot. When Christians say "the Bible", they talk about two collections, and it is impossible which one they mean when they say just "the Bible" without a quote or specifying the relative age of testaments. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What "case"?
You're still arguing a mistranslation... You hold the position that everything in the Bible is "commanded by God... You have yet to provide any evidence except for mistranslated verses, ignoring what it actually wirtten there.... Case DISMISSED... Awww.... so cute, is da rittle puppy weddy to step off da porchie? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I rest my case.
What "case"? You're still arguing a mistranslation... You hold the position that everything in the Bible is "commanded by God... You have yet to provide any evidence except for mistranslated verses, ignoring what it actually wirtten there.... Case DISMISSED..... Well, in that case, then BIBLE DISMISSED! I mean, if we can't trust the Bible to be the "Word of God", and much of what's actually written in the Bible is nothing more than the mere opinions of mortal men, then what good is the Bible? May as well just toss the whole thing in a fire barrel then because we have no way of knowing which parts of it supposedly came from "God" and which parts are just the ramblings of male-chauvinistic, bigoted, and homophobic mortal men. In other words, the if we take your stance Peter, then we must totally dismiss the Bible as being an unworthy source of information as far as what any supposed supreme being might want from us. All you're doing here is basically proclaiming that the Bible is a conglomeration of contaminated ideas, at best. If there is any spiritual truth to it we must sift through the man-made bigotries to find it. 
BIBLE DISMISSED! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Thu 01/20/11 02:16 PM
|
|
What "case"?
You're still arguing a mistranslation... You hold the position that everything in the Bible is "commanded by God... You have yet to provide any evidence except for mistranslated verses, ignoring what it actually wirtten there.... Case DISMISSED... Awww.... so cute, is da rittle puppy weddy to step off da porchie? Wow, that wasn't what I expected... (yes, I did expect something) It looks like you finally cracked, so what's next??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's all the response deserved, it clearly confused the imagination with reality so I simply added to the imaginary portion. I thought it was kinda funny, hope you were not offended. I trust that a little pickin just rolls of yer back like water off a duck.
You gotta case to present, or one of my earlier arguments to post and critique, cause coming in here boldly asserting things as if the are facts does not cut it. Especially when the thread itself conflicts with what you write. Go look. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zat better meetcher expectations?
|
|
|
|
|
