| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/10/2007 09:28:59 AM · #1101 |
Originally posted by Flash:
For me, the New Testament and specifically the Gospels/Acts, are the foundation on which the balance of scripture is understood. |
So your moral guide is the New Testament, which consists of books chosen Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. (yes, THOSE Catholics) ...even though you've made clear your personal belief that Catholics aren't Christians. You look specifically to the Gospels, written decades after the death of Jesus by four people whose real names aren't even known, none of whom ever actually met Jesus, and yet give specific, detailed quotes of even private conversations between two people when nobody else was present. Fascinating. :-/
Originally posted by Flash:
I do draw a distinction between social and religious morals. 2 of the easiest to exemplify are homosexuality and abortion. Although I believe they are both morally wrong... |
I wonder how you made that moral determination since Christ never actually mentioned either. Surely not *gasp* independent thought? :-O |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 09:36:41 AM · #1102 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One group makes the collective determination "these are the rules we will live by". Others elect to join the group, follow those rules. Now you have a religion. I grant you that's a gross over-simplification, but you see what I mean? |
I agree.
The points to which I object are:
o the implication that morality stems from religion rather than the other way around (as Bear_Music appears to agree);
o the implication that it is possible to observe the moral code set out in the bible, when it is incomplete and relies very largely on the reader's own, independent moral code as to how to interpret and apply that book;
o the implication that atheists might in some way be morally deficient, when in fact atheists take their morality from contemporary society, whereas those following a religion allow their morality to be influenced by social climates existing hundreds or thousands of years ago. Their moral code is more likely to be outdated and therefore deficient as a consequence. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 09:48:37 AM · #1103 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
For me, the New Testament and specifically the Gospels/Acts, are the foundation on which the balance of scripture is understood. |
So your moral guide is the New Testament, which consists of books chosen Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. (yes, THOSE Catholics) ...even though you've made clear your personal belief that Catholics aren't Christians. You look specifically to the Gospels, written decades after the death of Jesus by four people whose real names aren't even known, none of whom ever actually met Jesus, and yet give specific, detailed quotes of even private conversations between two people when nobody else was present. Fascinating. :-/
Originally posted by Flash:
I do draw a distinction between social and religious morals. 2 of the easiest to exemplify are homosexuality and abortion. Although I believe they are both morally wrong... |
I wonder how you made that moral determination since Christ never actually mentioned either. Surely not *gasp* independent thought? :-O |
Hold on there. Please find one instance where I stated that Catholics (with a capitol "C") are not christians. Others have illuded to it, not I.
And yes, Christ's quoted words are the basis for my assessments.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 09:58:19 AM · #1104 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
o the implication that atheists might in some way be morally deficient, when in fact atheists take their morality from contemporary society, whereas those following a religion allow their morality to be influenced by social climates existing hundreds or thousands of years ago. Their moral code is more likely to be outdated and therefore deficient as a consequence. |
My problem is with your sentence; "atheists take their morality from contemporary society...". To me that means that if contemporary society = Amsterdam or = Saudia Arabia or = Darfur, then morality is simply whatever society says it is. I might agree that this is what actually happens, however a reference work (whether it be a constitution or Bible) is paramount in my view to maintaining some semblence of historically acceptable mores'.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 10:02:43 AM · #1105 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Hold on there. Please find one instance where I stated that Catholics (with a capitol "C") are not christians. Others have illuded to it, not I. |
Ah, fair enough. I did have you mixed up with a couple of others. Striking that point out leaves- your moral guide is the New Testament, which consists of books chosen in 397 A.D. The point about the Gospels remains, and you didn't actually answer the question about morality with regard to abortion or homosexuality since "Christ's quoted words" don't exist for either subject. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 10:09:26 AM · #1106 |
Originally posted by Flash:
My problem is with your sentence; "atheists take their morality from contemporary society...". To me that means that if contemporary society = Amsterdam or = Saudia Arabia or = Darfur, then morality is simply whatever society says it is. I might agree that this is what actually happens, however a reference work (whether it be a constitution or Bible) is paramount in my view to maintaining some semblence of historically acceptable mores'. |
If you lived in Saudi or Darfur you would almost certainly have a different moral outlook in some respects (even if you were a Christian). Why deny that people's moral outlook is in large part determined by reference to the society they live in rather than the holy book that they read?
By writing a moral code down, it is possible to maintain a degree of consistency - but this is only partly successful. Constitutions are updated to reflect changes in society. In many respects religions are similarly subject to constant updating in order to keep them relevant - but this process relies on new interpretation, the preparation of new and revised ancillary texts, and schism, because re-writing the main texts is not usually acceptable. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 10:14:54 AM · #1107 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Hold on there. Please find one instance where I stated that Catholics (with a capitol "C") are not christians. Others have illuded to it, not I. |
Ah, fair enough. I did have you mixed up with a couple of others. Striking that point out leaves- your moral guide is the New Testament, which consists of books chosen in 397 A.D. The point about the Gospels remains, and you didn't actually answer the question about morality with regard to abortion or homosexuality since "Christ's quoted words" don't exist for either subject. |
You are mixing more. My moral "religious" guide is garnered from Christ. His 2 commandments, "place God your Father 1st in all things you do, in every thought, word and deed" and "love your brother as you would yourself". If one were placing God 1st in every thought word and deed, then not only the 2 examples posted above, but a host of other acts would not be engaged in. Of course, in order to know God, one would have to read his work, then understand his nature, then one could assess an act as being within God's will. As the second comandment states, regardless of one's acts, we all have acts that do not meet the criteria of the 1st commandment, thus regardless of how I feel the actions of others might be immoral, they are not any more immoral, than some of my own thoughts/words/deeds. Thus my acceptance of another sinners path - usually.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 10:21:09 AM · #1108 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If one were placing God 1st in every thought word and deed, then not only the 2 examples posted above, but a host of other acts would not be engaged in. |
Yes, including sex of any kind. I would venture to say you're not putting god first in the commission of the act - though I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 10:35:25 AM · #1109 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
If one were placing God 1st in every thought word and deed, then not only the 2 examples posted above, but a host of other acts would not be engaged in. |
Yes, including sex of any kind. I would venture to say you're not putting god first in the commission of the act - though I could be wrong. |
Don't be so sure. In an early challenge entry for sacred places, I posted a photo of a bedroom. I wrote that "Here, I both pray AND give thanks. Wine has been drunk and bread broken. Even a thunderous Halleluiah!!! on occassion."
;-)
Message edited by author 2007-12-10 10:37:42.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:05:43 PM · #1110 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
If one were placing God 1st in every thought word and deed, then not only the 2 examples posted above, but a host of other acts would not be engaged in. |
Yes, including sex of any kind. I would venture to say you're not putting god first in the commission of the act - though I could be wrong. |
Don't be so sure. In an early challenge entry for sacred places, I posted a photo of a bedroom. I wrote that "Here, I both pray AND give thanks. Wine has been drunk and bread broken. Even a thunderous Halleluiah!!! on occassion." |
I will assume this is tongue in cheek. Without resorting to selective interpretation of the old testament, I wonder then how you can surmise that sex between members of the opposite sex is somehow better or less "sinful" than sex between members of the same sex. Let us assume that both sets of partners are in long-term committed love-relationships. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:25:12 PM · #1111 |
It seems that this thread has wandered afield and is now considering morality.
That's whole different can of worms and is so suject to interpretation that it's ridiculous.
It is absolutely culture and society based, and is an affectation completely of the human race.
You cannot quote God on these matter because there simply is no proof.
It's *all* in the interpretation.
Someone said that certains actions are immoral because of God's word, and that can *only* be an interpretation.
Personally, I believe in universal salvation and so the whole judgment thing just doesn't wash on a daily basis of proving oneself as worthy.
I also believe that true moral character is defined by doing the "right" thing when nobody is looking.
Interpretation defines what "right" means.
And IMNSHO it's shameful to only have morality toward your fellow man due to fear of retribution.
That makes an honest, well-meaning atheist someone of higher moral fiber.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:30:39 PM · #1112 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Without resorting to selective interpretation of the old testament, I wonder then how you can surmise that sex between members of the opposite sex is somehow better or less "sinful" than sex between members of the same sex. Let us assume that both sets of partners are in long-term committed love-relationships. |
I don't. Especially when the sex is out of wedlock. As I haved attempted to illustrate previously, this is a very important point to me and one that I hope you will evaluate. Homosexual acts are not MORE sinful than a host of other sins. Just because I am a believer in christian teachings, does not mean I judge some sinners as MORE sinful than others (I am aware that some do). If I can be a believer (follower/disciple of Christ) and also be a sinner (as in thought/word/deed), then I do not understand how others cannot also be followers (even though their sins are different). This addresses an earlier post whereby, I think some non-believers "rationtioalize" their non-belief (due to apparent Biblical inconsistencies), when for me, the true truth, is folowwing Christ as a sinner - but striving to improve.
Another note - and I am aware that many believers do not share this - I am not CERTAIN on how my judgement will be rendered. I am fully aware of "once saved - always saved", and I am a believer that Faith is paramount to salvation. However, I am also aware that I have a free will choice, and I cannot gaurantee that my current path will remain my path throgh the rest of my days. I can envision an event(s) that could put into jeopardy my salvation, thus I must "work" to maintain my inheritence. This does not mean that I believe it is earned - no it is a gift. However, the maintenence of it requires concious actions on my part.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:34:27 PM · #1113 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Without resorting to selective interpretation of the old testament, I wonder then how you can surmise that sex between members of the opposite sex is somehow better or less "sinful" than sex between members of the same sex. Let us assume that both sets of partners are in long-term committed love-relationships. |
I don't. |
You do - because you said, "If one were placing God 1st in every thought word and deed, then [homosexuality] would not be engaged in." And unless you think straight sex is also always equally sinful, then you think it is better or somehow less sinful than homosexual sex. So? |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 01:02:45 PM · #1114 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Without resorting to selective interpretation of the old testament, I wonder then how you can surmise that sex between members of the opposite sex is somehow better or less "sinful" than sex between members of the same sex. Let us assume that both sets of partners are in long-term committed love-relationships. |
I don't. |
You do - because you said, "If one were placing God 1st in every thought word and deed, then [homosexuality] would not be engaged in." And unless you think straight sex is also always equally sinful, then you think it is better or somehow less sinful than homosexual sex. So? |
I believe you are twisting my words. I will attempt another review of my position. If this does not clarify, then we will just have to leave it. I do not think one sin is more sinful than another sin. Some denomiations teach of venial vs mortal sins (some requiring more pennence), however for the purposes of your question I will cite some examples of my position. Infidelity is not less sinful than homosexuality. Coveting anothers man's wife is not less sinfull than homosexuality. Engaging in pornography is not less sinful than homosexuality, Even when the above is done in a heterosexual context. Since heterosexual sex can be sinful and yet those engaging in it can be striving to be more christian, therefore homosexuals can also engage in sinful actions and still (in my opinion) strive to be more christian.
edit to add; We all have weaknesses. For some it is another man's wife. For others it is another man.
Message edited by author 2007-12-10 13:05:04.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 01:05:10 PM · #1115 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The reason I would categorize these passive choosers along with active choosers, is the same reason that the law does not excuse ignorance of the law as a defense for violating it. Therefore, as I believe that God has a law, and part of that law is to seek understanding of his will, failure to do so, regardless of whether it is active or passive is still a choice to not understand. |
But you assume that this is the situation and base the premise on that assumption, not to mention the arrogance (a cultural arrogance, if you will) that suggests that someone *HAS* to make the choice to ignore "your" law.....because ultimately, when you classify that person as one who has chosen not to accept your way, you're projecting your beliefs on them, which is neither right nor fair.
If someone has not made a choice to believe, he/she can just not have made a choice.....that doesn't mean that they have made the other choice by default.
It's like my feelings on the debate that I had with myself for years about Jesus Christ......good man, or Son of God?
Ultimately, I gave up and have no real opinion either way, because IMO, it doesn't matter.....to me it's not about Jesus, but his teachings, and either way I truly believe that he would feel the same way, it's not about HIM
In your world, I have to make that decision one way or the other, correct?
I *choose* to believe that it's irrelevant, therefore my choice is to not choose, and base some of my moral conduct on what I believe good principles to be according to his teachings.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 01:15:04 PM · #1116 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I believe you are twisting my words. |
I'm not twisting your words, but I guess you're missing my point. The two set of couples were supposed to be in a committed love-relationship. Meaning that the two homosexual partners practiced fidelity as much as the two hetero ones. No coveting required. A marriage in all but law, as it were (though here in Canada it would be a marriage). It is illuminating, though, that you appear unable to conceive of two same-sex people engaging in what I was trying to describe as a love-relationship expressed sexually (as also happens with an opposite-sex couple). |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 02:08:11 PM · #1117 |
Originally posted by Flash:
And yes, Christ's quoted words are the basis for my assessments. |
Still, I wish we had videotapes -- quotations are so often actually paraphrases written (long) after the conversation, and not a stenographic transcription made contemporaneously with the speech. And don't forget that those quotes have been translated multiple times ... I can guarantee you that Christ never actually spoke one of those words written in your version of the Bible -- English as we know it came along about 1500 years after His death. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 02:24:41 PM · #1118 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
And yes, Christ's quoted words are the basis for my assessments. |
Still, I wish we had videotapes -- quotations are so often actually paraphrases written (long) after the conversation, and not a stenographic transcription made contemporaneously with the speech. And don't forget that those quotes have been translated multiple times ... I can guarantee you that Christ never actually spoke one of those words written in your version of the Bible -- English as we know it came along about 1500 years after His death. |
Videotapes would be good - however they didn't really tell the whole story of the Rodney King incident or a multitude of other snipets of truth video has captured.
As mentioned earlier, I am perplexed on this position, primarily due to the following; I can have a good understanding of Homer's Odessy without challenging the transcribers. I can have a reasonably accurate reading of Socrates from Plato and Aristotle. I agree that Christ did not speak in English and thus some translations must be made for me to read it. However, when I view multiple Bibles side by side, with different scholars translating each version, and they each independently arrive at the same (same = df similar enough for my needs) words, then the message is dependable. Add to this further archeological writings not previously known (read Dead Sea Scrolls) and further non-theoligical writers of the periods.
I do agree that having been there personally to photographically document it would have been pretty cool. However, in light of the fact that even Peter denied him and Judas betrayed him, to some - even being there was not enough.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 02:32:00 PM · #1119 |
Originally posted by Flash:
As mentioned earlier, I am perplexed on this position, primarily due to the following; I can have a good understanding of Homer's Odessy without challenging the transcribers. I can have a reasonably accurate reading of Socrates from Plato and Aristotle. |
There are few people basing their world-view on Homer's Odyssey, and woefully few basing it on Plato. The problem comes in the many and varied interpretations, the quarrels over which interpretation is correct, and the (sometimes disastrous) consequences the various interpretations have for people - many of which don't care a whit for any interpretation.
If the bible were universally read as literature, and not a handbook for how to control oneself and others, I suspect GeneralE wouldn't really care which translation or interpretation was the preferred one.
Message edited by author 2007-12-10 14:33:11. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 02:55:02 PM · #1120 |
Originally posted by Louis:
There are few people basing their world-view on Homer's Odyssey, and woefully few basing it on Plato. The problem comes in the many and varied interpretations, the quarrels over which interpretation is correct, and the (sometimes disastrous) consequences the various interpretations have for people - many of which don't care a whit for any interpretation. |
I beleive they will be held accountable. Wide is the path and narrow the gate. Many can claim a thing. Few truly know. To those who do not read for themselves, then they are at the mercy of others intrepreting for them. One criticism I have of many Catholics. I don't feel they read scripture for themselves enough. Instead relying on a liturgical reading and subsequent sermon. This criticism should not be viewed as saying Catholics are not christian, merely not personally knowledgeable about that which Christ requires of them.
With abilities come responsibility. "For those who have been given much, much will be expected".
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 03:28:39 PM · #1121 |
Originally posted by Flash:
To those who do not read for themselves, then they are at the mercy of others intrepreting for them. One criticism I have of many Catholics. I don't feel they read scripture for themselves enough. Instead relying on a liturgical reading and subsequent sermon. This criticism should not be viewed as saying Catholics are not christian, merely not personally knowledgeable about that which Christ requires of them. |
That's a pretty ballsy statement to make, one which you're wrong about. You may remember that I've said elsewhere that I was formerly Catholic, went to Catholic school for my entire education, and very nearly entered the seminary immediately before waking up and becoming atheist. Catholics know scripture inside and out, as any other Christian does. As Christians, they particularly know the words of Jesus, and can cite chapter and verse virtually any quote, any attribution, and any scene. In school, we were required to have the bible, and to have it available at all times for our religion classes, which were compulsory all the way up to the end of high school. As students who believed, we were acutely knowledgeable about the requirements Jesus supposedly had of us.
Your comment, to me, outlines quite nicely the discussion about various interpretations, and how ultimately meaningless and divisive they are. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 03:29:36 PM · #1122 |
Originally posted by Louis:
If the bible were universally read as literature, and not a handbook for how to control oneself and others, I suspect GeneralE wouldn't really care which translation or interpretation was the preferred one. |
I don't know, some versions are definitely more well-written as "literature" than others ... if you search for "Bible" here you'll find several examples.
Also really interesting is Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible written by one of the leading science writers of the 20th century. Filled with background on the historical events and language of the time ... |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 03:30:56 PM · #1123 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Also really interesting is Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible written by one of the leading science writers of the 20th century. Filled with background on the historical events and language of the time ... |
If there aren't any robots, I'm not interested. :-( |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 03:41:34 PM · #1124 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Videotapes would be good - however they didn't really tell the whole story of the Rodney King incident or a multitude of other snipets of truth video has captured. |
Whole truth or not, it's hard to dispute that an event took place.
Originally posted by Flash:
I agree that Christ did not speak in English and thus some translations must be made for me to read it. However, when I view multiple Bibles side by side, with different scholars translating each version, and they each independently arrive at the same (same = df similar enough for my needs) words, then the message is dependable. |
Originally posted by Flash:
To those who do not read for themselves, then they are at the mercy of others intrepreting for them. One criticism I have of many Catholics. I don't feel they read scripture for themselves enough. Instead relying on a liturgical reading and subsequent sermon. This criticism should not be viewed as saying Catholics are not christian, merely not personally knowledgeable about that which Christ requires of them. |
If scripture isn't written in your native language, then you're already at the mercy of others interpreting for you. Oh, wait... that would include English. Add to that 1000+ years of stories passed down by word of mouth, the original authors choosing which versions of which stories to include, Catholics deciding 400 years later which books to include in the Old and New Testaments (and which to throw out), several Kings and Popes commissioning new versions, various denominations deciding which interpretation to follow, personal guidance from family members and/or other mentors... it becomes full-belly-laugh comical that you would criticize anyone for relying upon the interpretation of others. :-/ |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 03:44:35 PM · #1125 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
To those who do not read for themselves, then they are at the mercy of others intrepreting for them. One criticism I have of many Catholics. I don't feel they read scripture for themselves enough. Instead relying on a liturgical reading and subsequent sermon. This criticism should not be viewed as saying Catholics are not christian, merely not personally knowledgeable about that which Christ requires of them. |
That's a pretty ballsy statement to make, one which you're wrong about. You may remember that I've said elsewhere that I was formerly Catholic, went to Catholic school for my entire education, and very nearly entered the seminary immediately before waking up and becoming atheist. Catholics know scripture inside and out, as any other Christian does. As Christians, they particularly know the words of Jesus, and can cite chapter and verse virtually any quote, any attribution, and any scene. In school, we were required to have the bible, and to have it available at all times for our religion classes, which were compulsory all the way up to the end of high school. As students who believed, we were acutely knowledgeable about the requirements Jesus supposedly had of us.
Your comment, to me, outlines quite nicely the discussion about various interpretations, and how ultimately meaningless and divisive they are. |
Nothing "ballsy" about it. Just emperical fact. On any Sunday, attending Mass, how many pew sitters have a copy of the Bible they brought from home? Nearly none. How many read scripture daily? Hopw many baptized and confirmed catholics have ever read the entire New Testament, studied it intensely, etc? How many attended Catechism beyond gradeschool? I don't know any Catholics that can quote chapter/verse, however I'm certain there are some. Perhaps even many. I am not convinced that because you can, that all can.
I have similar criticisms of Jehovah's Witnesses who study from literature handed out from the "main office".
You do give me hope though. Anyone who was a porochial student for years, considered seminary, and now thinks they are an atheist, well, you are really just like a million other former Catholics that chose to not participate anymore, until one day when you re-discover a need for it. Having been there and done that, I'll say a few words for you.
Really. Even if you become a Luthern. ;-)
|
|
