| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2007 03:47:18 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Since you felt it necessary to repeat the questions |
You repeated them.
and I still don't expect an answer. |
Actually, you did repeat them ( perhaps not verbatim, but pretty close ):
1) You posed them first at on 12/05/2007 01:42:00 PM in response to Flash:
Originally posted by Flash:
Simply said, it was an attempt to be polite, yet still reference citizens who engage in activities typically not conforming to scripture.
Originally posted by Gordon:
So is that pretty much anyone who isn't having sex expressly for the purpose of procreation ? Does that mean only atheists use contraception ? I'm confused now. Wouldn't that mean they'd be dying out ? |
|
2) You repeated them on 12/05/2007 at 01:50:51 PM
Originally posted by Gordan:
Then we seem to have established that 'sexually liberal' means 'engaging in activities typically not conforming to scripture'. I'm just asking if that means any activities that aren't expressly for the purposes of procreation ? So 'sexually liberal' would seem to include anyone using contraception, etc ? |
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 04:16:21 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Since you felt it necessary to repeat the questions |
You repeated them.
and I still don't expect an answer. |
Actually, you did repeat them ( perhaps not verbatim, but pretty close ):
|
I didn't disagree with you.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 04:56:38 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Since you felt it necessary to repeat the questions |
You repeated them.
and I still don't expect an answer. |
Actually, you did repeat them ( perhaps not verbatim, but pretty close ):
|
I didn't disagree with you. |
True, you didn't. But if you had nothing substantive to offer, what was your purpose for responding to my post? Your first statement seemed to be a rebuttal of my statement that you repeated the questions. If it was not, what was the purpose in making the statement? As for your second statement, if no answer was expected, stating as much was a moot point, since I had already answered them. So again, what was the purpose in making the statement? |
|
|
|
12/05/2007 05:07:37 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Valid points. I don't see why DPC can force christian concepts down my throat but refuse to have a girls kissing girls challenge, as if something is wrong or immoral with that concept.
Heathens. |
Umm, wouldn't that work for Hell?
|
|
|
|
12/05/2007 05:12:30 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by RonB:
True, you didn't. But if you had nothing substantive to offer, what was your purpose for responding to my post? Your first statement seemed to be a rebuttal of my statement that you repeated the questions. If it was not, what was the purpose in making the statement? As for your second statement, if no answer was expected, stating as much was a moot point, since I had already answered them. So again, what was the purpose in making the statement? |
Perhaps it was rhetorical ?
|
|
|
|
12/08/2007 01:31:50 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Most morality in religious belief is "absolute". That is, the Supreme Being is the "moral pole" by which to calibrate all our moral compasses. Atheism does not provide such a "moral pole" and thus subscribes to a "relative" morality. |
Humanists do not need a "higher authority" to know how to behave. The only authority is humanity. There is a universal abhorrance of suffering, and the ultimate goal of any sentient being is to end the suffering of itself and others. As such, humanism subscribes to the "golden rule" of desiring for others exactly what the individual desires for itself, that is, the end of suffering. |
I would add that religion does not provide a "moral pole".
I would argue that morality is derived from human nature and changing social needs. Religions are fixed into the morality of a region at a specific time, but are too inflexible against the backdrop of a changing society to be observed comprehensively for very long.
This is why religions undergo occasional reform (because they become irretrievably out of date and need to be re-interpreted). It is also why they have to be interpreted so heavily to make sense in the context of our contemporary morality, and why they have to be interpreted selectively (because some of the rules become impractical or irrelevant).
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 08:22:34 AM · #332 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Most morality in religious belief is "absolute". That is, the Supreme Being is the "moral pole" by which to calibrate all our moral compasses. Atheism does not provide such a "moral pole" and thus subscribes to a "relative" morality. |
Humanists do not need a "higher authority" to know how to behave. The only authority is humanity. There is a universal abhorrance of suffering, and the ultimate goal of any sentient being is to end the suffering of itself and others. As such, humanism subscribes to the "golden rule" of desiring for others exactly what the individual desires for itself, that is, the end of suffering. |
I would add that religion does not provide a "moral pole".
I would argue that morality is derived from human nature and changing social needs. Religions are fixed into the morality of a region at a specific time, but are too inflexible against the backdrop of a changing society to be observed comprehensively for very long.
This is why religions undergo occasional reform (because they become irretrievably out of date and need to be re-interpreted). It is also why they have to be interpreted so heavily to make sense in the context of our contemporary morality, and why they have to be interpreted selectively (because some of the rules become impractical or irrelevant). |
Please feel free to post examples of how the only 2 commandments of the New Testament are either impractical, irrelevant or both. I would likewise entertain examples of Christ's words from the Gospels/Acts were they were impractical/irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 10:00:59 AM · #333 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Most morality in religious belief is "absolute". That is, the Supreme Being is the "moral pole" by which to calibrate all our moral compasses. Atheism does not provide such a "moral pole" and thus subscribes to a "relative" morality. |
Humanists do not need a "higher authority" to know how to behave. The only authority is humanity. There is a universal abhorrance of suffering, and the ultimate goal of any sentient being is to end the suffering of itself and others. As such, humanism subscribes to the "golden rule" of desiring for others exactly what the individual desires for itself, that is, the end of suffering. |
I would add that religion does not provide a "moral pole".
I would argue that morality is derived from human nature and changing social needs. Religions are fixed into the morality of a region at a specific time, but are too inflexible against the backdrop of a changing society to be observed comprehensively for very long.
This is why religions undergo occasional reform (because they become irretrievably out of date and need to be re-interpreted). It is also why they have to be interpreted so heavily to make sense in the context of our contemporary morality, and why they have to be interpreted selectively (because some of the rules become impractical or irrelevant). |
Please feel free to post examples of how the only 2 commandments of the New Testament are either impractical, irrelevant or both. I would likewise entertain examples of Christ's words from the Gospels/Acts were they were impractical/irrelevant. |
Turn the other cheek: Would it have been practical for the US to follow this following 9/11? How would you justify, as a Christian, participating in war? |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 10:29:48 AM · #334 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Turn the other cheek: Would it have been practical for the US to follow this following 9/11? How would you justify, as a Christian, participating in war? |
I have posted this elsewhere, however I cannot recall in which thread.
1. Christ displayed anger and action when he threw the money changers out of the Temple.
2. He specifically told at least one dicisple to; "sell you cloak and buy a sword".
Lastly, please know that I have a distinction between my christainity and my society. In other words, some of my societal beliefs do not hold well with my religious knowledge. However, I am prepared to face that judgement - whatever it may be.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 10:46:53 AM · #335 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Turn the other cheek: Would it have been practical for the US to follow this following 9/11? How would you justify, as a Christian, participating in war? |
I have posted this elsewhere, however I cannot recall in which thread.
1. Christ displayed anger and action when he threw the money changers out of the Temple.
2. He specifically told at least one dicisple to; "sell you cloak and buy a sword".
Lastly, please know that I have a distinction between my christainity and my society. In other words, some of my societal beliefs do not hold well with my religious knowledge. However, I am prepared to face that judgement - whatever it may be. |
So, Christ himself was inconsistent?
It's hard to turn the other cheek and "sell your cloak and buy a sword". |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 10:55:52 AM · #336 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have posted this elsewhere, however I cannot recall in which thread.
1. Christ displayed anger and action when he threw the money changers out of the Temple.
|
This is a good example of how the book can be reinterpreted to reflect contemporary morality.
Historically, the expulsion of the money lenders from the temple was used as justification for outlawing usury (the charging of interest). Money lending and usury have subsequently become socially acceptable in the West (ironically, because of the need to finance wars!). Islam still rejects usury (but finds ways around it - Islamic financing has been increasingly important in the last few years).
You are therefore very selectively interpreting this tale to ignore Christ's message against usury - this suits you because, relying on your contemporary morality, usury has become acceptable and I presume that you rely on it (eg you have a mortgage, bank account or credit card that does not use an exotic finance technique).
You reinterpret it to justify the breach of what you contemplate as being one of Christ's two commandments. This is quite a bold step to take - embrace usury against Christ's teaching, and use his teachings against usury as a justification for breaching one of his commandments.
The thing is, I think that your moral position is entirely defensible - but only in the context of modern society, not that of the first to fourth centuries AD.
Message edited by author 2007-12-10 10:57:35. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 11:00:37 AM · #337 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Turn the other cheek: Would it have been practical for the US to follow this following 9/11? How would you justify, as a Christian, participating in war? |
I have posted this elsewhere, however I cannot recall in which thread.
1. Christ displayed anger and action when he threw the money changers out of the Temple.
2. He specifically told at least one dicisple to; "sell you cloak and buy a sword".
Lastly, please know that I have a distinction between my christainity and my society. In other words, some of my societal beliefs do not hold well with my religious knowledge. However, I am prepared to face that judgement - whatever it may be. |
So, Christ himself was inconsistent?
It's hard to turn the other cheek and "sell your cloak and buy a sword". |
Not so at all. He also said when another disciple came forward and offered to sell his cloak for a sword, "no, one is enough". To garner the meaning (as Christ often soke in parables - thus my contention that "some" of scripture is allegorical), one would need to place these verses into the whole of Christ's words. I believe that once one did that, they would come away with a God/Christ that 1st sought out harmony, even truning the other cheek. However, at some point, it is no longer acceptable to turn the other cheek and then a MEASURED response is required. I believe this is further supported by God's message of forgiveness. Nearly any action is forgiveable and even repeated acts are forgiveable, given a sincere repentance. However, even God will reach a point where you are no longer welcome in his house, although admittedly it takes a while to get there.
Thus I see no inconsistencies. In fact it is those that teach a purely passive Christ, whom I think are inconsistent.
Message edited by author 2007-12-10 11:03:44.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 11:03:08 AM · #338 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Turn the other cheek: Would it have been practical for the US to follow this following 9/11? How would you justify, as a Christian, participating in war? |
I have posted this elsewhere, however I cannot recall in which thread.
1. Christ displayed anger and action when he threw the money changers out of the Temple.
2. He specifically told at least one dicisple to; "sell you cloak and buy a sword".
Lastly, please know that I have a distinction between my christainity and my society. In other words, some of my societal beliefs do not hold well with my religious knowledge. However, I am prepared to face that judgement - whatever it may be. |
So, Christ himself was inconsistent?
It's hard to turn the other cheek and "sell your cloak and buy a sword". |
Not so at all. He also said when another disciple came forward and offered to sell his cloak for a sword, "no, one is enough". To garner the meaning (as Christ often soke in parables - thus my contention that "some" of scripture is allegorical), one would need to place these verses into the whole of Christ's words. I believe that once one did that, they would come away with a God/Christ that 1st sought out harmony, even truning the other cheek. However, at some point, it is no longer acceptable to turn the other cheek and then a MEASURED response is required. I believe this is further supported by God's message of forgiveness. Nearly any action is forgiveable and even repeated acts are forgiveable, given a sincere repentance. However, even God will reach a point where you are no longer welcome in his house, although admittedly it takes a while to get there.
Thus I see no inconsistencies. |
So, Christ condoned sinning because it would be forgiven later?
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 11:04:26 AM · #339 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Turn the other cheek: Would it have been practical for the US to follow this following 9/11? How would you justify, as a Christian, participating in war? |
I have posted this elsewhere, however I cannot recall in which thread.
1. Christ displayed anger and action when he threw the money changers out of the Temple.
2. He specifically told at least one dicisple to; "sell you cloak and buy a sword".
Lastly, please know that I have a distinction between my christainity and my society. In other words, some of my societal beliefs do not hold well with my religious knowledge. However, I am prepared to face that judgement - whatever it may be. |
So, Christ himself was inconsistent?
It's hard to turn the other cheek and "sell your cloak and buy a sword". |
Not so at all. He also said when another disciple came forward and offered to sell his cloak for a sword, "no, one is enough". To garner the meaning (as Christ often soke in parables - thus my contention that "some" of scripture is allegorical), one would need to place these verses into the whole of Christ's words. I believe that once one did that, they would come away with a God/Christ that 1st sought out harmony, even truning the other cheek. However, at some point, it is no longer acceptable to turn the other cheek and then a MEASURED response is required. I believe this is further supported by God's message of forgiveness. Nearly any action is forgiveable and even repeated acts are forgiveable, given a sincere repentance. However, even God will reach a point where you are no longer welcome in his house, although admittedly it takes a while to get there.
Thus I see no inconsistencies. |
So, Christ condoned sinning because it would be forgiven later? |
I did not say that. I do not see how you got that from my post.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 11:11:58 AM · #340 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
I have posted this elsewhere, however I cannot recall in which thread.
1. Christ displayed anger and action when he threw the money changers out of the Temple.
|
This is a good example of how the book can be reinterpreted to reflect contemporary morality.
Historically, the expulsion of the money lenders from the temple was used as justification for outlawing usury (the charging of interest). Money lending and usury have subsequently become socially acceptable in the West (ironically, because of the need to finance wars!). Islam still rejects usury (but finds ways around it - Islamic financing has been increasingly important in the last few years).
You are therefore very selectively interpreting this tale to ignore Christ's message against usury - this suits you because, relying on your contemporary morality, usury has become acceptable and I presume that you rely on it (eg you have a mortgage, bank account or credit card that does not use an exotic finance technique).
You reinterpret it to justify the breach of what you contemplate as being one of Christ's two commandments. This is quite a bold step to take - embrace usury against Christ's teaching, and use his teachings against usury as a justification for breaching one of his commandments.
The thing is, I think that your moral position is entirely defensible - but only in the context of modern society, not that of the first to fourth centuries AD. |
I have a different take on this event. It was the "price gouging" of the sellers that evoked the action. Worshipers were following the edicts of sacrificing animals and were being taken advantage of.
He was preparing the teaching that He was the replacement for this practice of the Old Law. He was the sacrificial Lamb. It was his blood to be shed once, for all.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 11:46:41 AM · #341 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I have a different take on this event. It was the "price gouging" of the sellers that evoked the action. Worshipers were following the edicts of sacrificing animals and were being taken advantage of.
He was preparing the teaching that He was the replacement for this practice of the Old Law. He was the sacrificial Lamb. It was his blood to be shed once, for all. |
yes - this is my point. For centuries people have treated this as Christ's prohibition of usury. You have departed from that interpretation.
Is that because (1) people have been misinterpreting it for centuries (they will all go to hell for having given up usury instead of price gouging) or (2) usury is now morally acceptable, but price gouging (eg through anti-competitive behaviour) is now morally questionable in the modern global market?
One thing's for sure: the text hasn't changed since the 4th C. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:05:32 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Turn the other cheek: Would it have been practical for the US to follow this following 9/11? How would you justify, as a Christian, participating in war? |
I have posted this elsewhere, however I cannot recall in which thread.
1. Christ displayed anger and action when he threw the money changers out of the Temple.
2. He specifically told at least one dicisple to; "sell you cloak and buy a sword".
Lastly, please know that I have a distinction between my christainity and my society. In other words, some of my societal beliefs do not hold well with my religious knowledge. However, I am prepared to face that judgement - whatever it may be. |
So, Christ himself was inconsistent?
It's hard to turn the other cheek and "sell your cloak and buy a sword". |
Not so at all. He also said when another disciple came forward and offered to sell his cloak for a sword, "no, one is enough". To garner the meaning (as Christ often soke in parables - thus my contention that "some" of scripture is allegorical), one would need to place these verses into the whole of Christ's words. I believe that once one did that, they would come away with a God/Christ that 1st sought out harmony, even truning the other cheek. However, at some point, it is no longer acceptable to turn the other cheek and then a MEASURED response is required. I believe this is further supported by God's message of forgiveness. Nearly any action is forgiveable and even repeated acts are forgiveable, given a sincere repentance. However, even God will reach a point where you are no longer welcome in his house, although admittedly it takes a while to get there.
Thus I see no inconsistencies. |
So, Christ condoned sinning because it would be forgiven later? |
I did not say that. I do not see how you got that from my post. |
Not directly. A sword has no purpose other than to kill other people. If he tells his disciple to arm himself thus, how is it not preparing to kill? Killing is definitely not turning the other cheek.
Where does Christ say, "Turn the other cheek, but if that gets slapped too, kill the slappin' S.O.B."?
Message edited by author 2007-12-10 12:08:08. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:09:46 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by Flash:
To garner the meaning (as Christ often soke in parables - thus my contention that "some" of scripture is allegorical... |
Just want to clarify. Do you contend that the bible is the literal word of God and must be taken at face value? Or do you contend that the bible is a work of allegory to be interpreted and not taken literally? |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:20:15 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Flash:
2. He specifically told at least one dicisple to; "sell you cloak and buy a sword". |
He also said when another disciple came forward and offered to sell his cloak for a sword, "no, one is enough". |
Please point me to the scripture for this. I've never heard of this. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:41:52 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Flash:
2. He specifically told at least one dicisple to; "sell you cloak and buy a sword". |
He also said when another disciple came forward and offered to sell his cloak for a sword, "no, one is enough". |
Please point me to the scripture for this. I've never heard of this. |
I do not have the exact book and verse with me at the moment, however the event took place in the Garden of "gesthemine" (sp) when Judas betrays Christ with a kiss and the Roman Centurians are arresting him.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:45:43 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Flash:
2. He specifically told at least one dicisple to; "sell you cloak and buy a sword". |
He also said when another disciple came forward and offered to sell his cloak for a sword, "no, one is enough". |
Please point me to the scripture for this. I've never heard of this. |
I do not have the exact book and verse with me at the moment, however the event took place in the Garden of "gesthemine" (sp) when Judas betrays Christ with a kiss and the Roman Centurians are arresting him. |
Luke 22:36 |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 12:46:56 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
To garner the meaning (as Christ often soke in parables - thus my contention that "some" of scripture is allegorical... |
Just want to clarify. Do you contend that the bible is the literal word of God and must be taken at face value? Or do you contend that the bible is a work of allegory to be interpreted and not taken literally? |
It is both. A stated elsewhere, the problem is knowing which is which. I am aware that some maintain that All Scripture is the direct literal word of God. I maintain that, since Christ taught using parables, and Christ is God the Son, then some scripture has a very high probability of being figurative. It at times can be both literal and figurative. For example, some parables are specific to the day, yet applicable through the ages - thus both literal and figurative.
|
|
|
|
12/10/2007 01:23:49 PM · #348 |
Thank you, Spaz.
NRSV:
35 [Jesus] asked them [the eleven apostles], "When I sent you out without a purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?"
They said, "No, not a thing."
36 He said to them, "But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you, this scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered among the lawless’; and indeed what is written about me is being fulfilled."
38 They [the disciples] said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"It is enough," he replied.
Okay, I have a confession to make. As cynical as I am about the words of Jesus actually coming from a single person and actually being transcribed as stated, I still feel a very personal connection to most of his words. He is a prophet that speaks to me very directly. Notice the Socratic beauty of verse 35, a typical message along the lines of "when Jesus is with you, you don't need anything else." Notice how 36 turns this on its head. His point is to emphasize a change between then and "now." Not only is the sword needed, but also the purse. This is not an appeal to pragmatism, but an admission of defeat. Not his own defeat, but the defeat of the people who fail to understand his message. He knows now that his death is at hand. Two swords are not enough for a "moderate response," not nearly enough for them to defend themselves, they are only enough to demonstrate defeat, to present themselves as criminals and fulfill the prophecy of a messiah being treated as a criminal. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 02:24:13 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
As cynical as I am about the words of Jesus actually coming from a single person and actually being transcribed as stated, I still feel a very personal connection to most of his words. |
Read that whole passage of Luke and ask yourself who is recording these events. These are very specific quotes relayed decades later by people who weren't actually present. Imagine a reporter today getting such a detailed account of every conversation from say, 1978... without the benefit of tapes or other written records, and after many of those featured in private conversations were long since dead. |
|
|
|
12/10/2007 03:08:49 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by posthumous:
As cynical as I am about the words of Jesus actually coming from a single person and actually being transcribed as stated, I still feel a very personal connection to most of his words. |
Read that whole passage of Luke and ask yourself who is recording these events. These are very specific quotes relayed decades later by people who weren't actually present. Imagine a reporter today getting such a detailed account of every conversation from say, 1978... without the benefit of tapes or other written records, and after many of those featured in private conversations were long since dead. |
Kind of like Socrates who relied on Plato to record his lessons who inturn taught them to Aristotle. Today I can read Socrates as though I am a student of his in his classroom - eventhough he did not personally record a single notation. I am not sure if every Socratic lesson read today was translated from an original Platonian text, but I doubt it was. Yet, we are reasonably sure of what Socrates said.
|
|
