// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Deeper Waters Forum Guidelines

Notice Ė The ministries featured in this section of TheologyWeb are guests of this site and in some cases not bargaining for the rough and tumble world of debate forums, though sometimes they are. Additionally, this area is frequented and highlighted for guests who also very often are not acclimated to debate fora. As such, the rules of conduct here will be more strict than in the general forum. This will be something within the discretion of the Moderators and the Ministry Representative, but we simply ask that you conduct yourselves in a manner considerate of the fact that these ministries are our invited guests. You can always feel free to start a related thread in general forum without such extra restrictions. Thank you.

Deeper Waters is founded on the belief that the Christian community has long been in the shallow end of Christianity while there are treasures of the deep waiting to be discovered. Too many in the shallow end are not prepared when they go out beyond those waters and are quickly devoured by sharks. We wish to aid Christians to equip them to navigate the deeper waters of the ocean of truth and come up with treasure in the end.

We also wish to give special aid to those often neglected, that is, the disabled community. This is especially so since our founders are both on the autism spectrum and have a special desire to reach those on that spectrum. While they are a special emphasis, we seek to help others with any disability realize that God can use them and that they are as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made.

General TheologyWeb forum rules: here.
See more
See less

Genesis and Antis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Genesis and Antis

    Is Christianity really a faith opposed to the joys of life? https://deeperwaters.wordpress.com/2...sis-and-antis/

  • #2
    Heya Nick! I have no wish to be in your face. But I cannot resist pointing out you wrote "in face" when in fact it should be "in fact"
    The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

    [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    Comment


    • #3
      Psalm 139:14

      Comment


      • #4
        Some of you might have seen this meme.
        [ATTACH=CONFIG]3875[/ATTACH]
        A lot of Christians say everyone is sinful, right from the moment of birth (some go so far as to say we all deserve to go to hell just for being born human). A lot of Christians say God has the right to snuff our lives out if he wants (to morally justify various genocides mainly). I do not know if you agree with that or not, but I would guess that those ideas that are the basis for the meme.

        Then there are verses such as 1 Corinthians 1:20, where learning (or at least those who have learning) are disparaged.

        "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

        It would have been interesting if you could have addressed that in your article. Instead, you addressed a bunch of other things.
        I oppose the New Age movement naturally and think they can go too far with environmentalism, but many of us don’t go far enough. Christians sadly do have a reputation of wanting to destroy the environment. A lot of this has to do with some ideas that can be around that this world is not our home and we’re just passing through so why be so focused on it? God’s going to destroy this world anyway.

        This is not a view I hold. I prefer the old hymn "This is my Father’s world."
        Agreed.
        Woman is to be celebrated and any man who is dating or married should be treating his woman as a princess. She is to be honored.
        However, there are plenty of verses that indicate woman is to have a lesser role, and historically the Christian church has been run by men. Even today many Christian's see a woman's place as in the home. That is not equality.
        Christianity is anti-sex!

        Really? Seriously?
        Set up that straw man and punch him for all you are worth.

        Christian is not anti-sex, it is about restricting sex. It would be bad enough if it said you will only have sex with your spouse, but it goes beyond that, not permitting a consenting husband and wife to enjoy anal sex. Oh, and then there is the though-crime. You are not even allowed to think about having sex with anyone who is not your spouse.
        Attached Files
        Last edited by The Pixie; 02-06-2015, 08:12 AM.
        My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
          A lot of Christians say everyone is sinful, right from the moment of birth (some go so far as to say we all deserve to go to hell just for being born human). A lot of Christians say God has the right to snuff our lives out if he wants (to morally justify various genocides mainly). I do not know if you agree with that or not, but I would guess that those ideas that are the basis for the meme.
          Let's suppose we are sinful from birth. Let's suppose God does have the right to judge us. Well that's kind of what makes grace so special. It's easy to have love for those who are loving towards you. Not for those who are not.

          Then there are verses such as 1 Corinthians 1:20, where learning (or at least those who have learning) are disparaged.

          "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

          It would have been interesting if you could have addressed that in your article. Instead, you addressed a bunch of other things.
          Paul is also writing to a city that was familiar with the philosophical schools of thought and going after sophistry. These were people who could argue anything and would argue anything. They would wake up one day and argue passionately for one position. The next day they would argue for the opposite.

          Paul is definitely not disparaging learning. He's learned himself and encourages study. He's saying the reality is that many in the church were not learned still. They were just common people.


          However, there are plenty of verses that indicate woman is to have a lesser role, and historically the Christian church has been run by men. Even today many Christian's see a woman's place as in the home. That is not equality.
          How would different roles mean that the two have different natures and one is superior to the other? If my wife wanted to get a career outside of the house, I have no problem with that. Until then, being a housewife is not an awful position. It's one of the most important in our society.

          Set up that straw man and punch him for all you are worth.

          Christian is not anti-sex, it is about restricting sex. It would be bad enough if it said you will only have sex with your spouse, but it goes beyond that, not permitting a consenting husband and wife to enjoy anal sex. Oh, and then there is the though-crime. You are not even allowed to think about having sex with anyone who is not your spouse.
          Not a straw man. What a married couple wants to do in their bedroom is their business. Some stuff I'd find distasteful, but it's their business, but yes on the last. You are not to lust after someone you are not married to. Why should you? Why would anyone even want to? Wouldn't it be best to build up the relationship you have with the one you cherish?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
            Let's suppose we are sinful from birth. Let's suppose God does have the right to judge us. Well that's kind of what makes grace so special. It's easy to have love for those who are loving towards you. Not for those who are not.
            The message to children then is that they are broken, flawed, sinful. Just as the meme you were trying to refute says. The Christian message is that you are worthless and sinful, but hey, God will save you anyway - if you worship him. The message from science is that you are full of wonder. Oh, and you do not have to worship science.
            Paul is also writing to a city that was familiar with the philosophical schools of thought and going after sophistry. These were people who could argue anything and would argue anything. They would wake up one day and argue passionately for one position. The next day they would argue for the opposite.

            Paul is definitely not disparaging learning. He's learned himself and encourages study. He's saying the reality is that many in the church were not learned still. They were just common people.
            That is good to hear. So much of fundamentalism seems to be targeting science, it is reassuring some Christians value it.
            However, there are plenty of verses that indicate woman is to have a lesser role, and historically the Christian church has been run by men. Even today many Christian's see a woman's place as in the home. That is not equality.
            How would different roles mean that the two have different natures and one is superior to the other? If my wife wanted to get a career outside of the house, I have no problem with that. Until then, being a housewife is not an awful position. It's one of the most important in our society.
            Here are just a few verses that indicate that Biblically men are superior to women.

            Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

            See Exodus 21 for how to sell your daughter

            Leviticus 12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. 5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.

            Leviticus 15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. 21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. 15:24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.

            Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

            There are plenty more. Can you name any of the women on the ark? Any of Adam and Eve's daughters?

            I did not say that being a housewife was bad; it is however often considered a lesser role and it is the role given to women (even the terminology loads that in). As I said, even today many Christians see a woman's place as the home maker, it took me no time at all to find these three examples.

            https://carm.org/apologetics/womens-...k-outside-home
            http://www.gty.org/resources/questio...tside-the-home
            http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Testi...fe_at_home.htm

            I commend you for taking a more equal view, but you seem to be an exception here.
            Not a straw man.
            Just find a couple of examples of mainstream non-Christians saying Christianity is anti-sex and I will believe it is not a strawman.
            What a married couple wants to do in their bedroom is their business. Some stuff I'd find distasteful, but it's their business, but yes on the last. You are not to lust after someone you are not married to. Why should you? Why would anyone even want to? Wouldn't it be best to build up the relationship you have with the one you cherish?
            Sure that is best. But it takes Christianity to turn thinking about sex with someone other than your wife into a sin. Is it wrong to have lustful thoughts about a girl you are dating?

            And you have already built up a huge restriction with "What a married couple wants to do". Most Christians object to same-sex marriages, and so gay people have no sex permitted at all. Oh, wait, all gay sex is prohibited anyway. Sex after divorce is a sin according to the Bible (though many Christians will ignore that). Sex outside of marriage is a sin.

            No, Christianity is not anti-sex, but it very controlling in what sex is allowed and what is not.
            My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
              The message to children then is that they are broken, flawed, sinful. Just as the meme you were trying to refute says. The Christian message is that you are worthless and sinful, but hey, God will save you anyway - if you worship him. The message from science is that you are full of wonder. Oh, and you do not have to worship science.
              First off, science can't say if you are wonderful or not. That is an outside idea you bring to the science. Science cannot detect or measure wonder. The Christian message is also not that you are worthless. If you were worthless, there would be no point in Christ dying for you. As for worship, the Christian message is you are fallen, but you can be lifted up to be seated in the Heavens, but only if you accept it.

              That is good to hear. So much of fundamentalism seems to be targeting science, it is reassuring some Christians value it.
              The problem on the other side is so much fundamentalism does worship science as the way, the truth, and the life. If something isn't scientific, it's not true supposedly. Who needs philosophy and metaphysics and history?

              No. I am not joking. I encounter this kind of mindset regularly.



              Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
              How does this show superiority?

              See Exodus 21 for how to sell your daughter
              Same question.

              Leviticus 12:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. 5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
              If this is sexist, it's towards boys! Girls get the extra time and attention from the mother. Boys don't get that.

              Leviticus 15:19 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. 20 And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. 21 And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 22 And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. 23 And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. 15:24 And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
              You might want to check and notice similar standards apply to men with uncleanliness.

              Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
              This shows superiority how?

              There are plenty more. Can you name any of the women on the ark? Any of Adam and Eve's daughters?
              Same question.

              I did not say that being a housewife was bad; it is however often considered a lesser role and it is the role given to women (even the terminology loads that in). As I said, even today many Christians see a woman's place as the home maker, it took me no time at all to find these three examples.

              https://carm.org/apologetics/womens-...k-outside-home
              http://www.gty.org/resources/questio...tside-the-home
              http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Testi...fe_at_home.htm
              The first two both allow a woman to work outside the home. Not a problem. The third I note has a reputation for being quite crazy so I really don't care what they say.

              I commend you for taking a more equal view, but you seem to be an exception here.
              No. I think you'll find the view you think exceptional is more common than you think.

              Just find a couple of examples of mainstream non-Christians saying Christianity is anti-sex and I will believe it is not a strawman.
              Sure. I can do that some later on.

              Sure that is best. But it takes Christianity to turn thinking about sex with someone other than your wife into a sin. Is it wrong to have lustful thoughts about a girl you are dating?
              That depends on what you mean. Do you mean is it wrong to desire her purely for sex? Yes. If you just see her as a sex object, that is wrong. Is it wrong to desire her? No. Yet in Jesus's saying, it is said that if you look at a woman to lust. A man can't control the first thought always that goes into his head, but he has more power what he does with it. If you look at a woman just to satisfy your own desire, then the idea is that if you could get away with it in a cost-benefit analysis, you would do whatever it took to get sex with her, even rape. That is also why hating your brother is condemned the same way. If hatred is there, it means that if you could get away with it, you would murder.

              And you have already built up a huge restriction with "What a married couple wants to do". Most Christians object to same-sex marriages, and so gay people have no sex permitted at all. Oh, wait, all gay sex is prohibited anyway. Sex after divorce is a sin according to the Bible (though many Christians will ignore that). Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
              I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage.

              No, Christianity is not anti-sex, but it very controlling in what sex is allowed and what is not.
              It sure is. That's because sex is something sacred and powerful. Why treat it lightly? It's too good for that.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                First off, science can't say if you are wonderful or not. That is an outside idea you bring to the science. Science cannot detect or measure wonder. The Christian message is also not that you are worthless. If you were worthless, there would be no point in Christ dying for you. As for worship, the Christian message is you are fallen, but you can be lifted up to be seated in the Heavens, but only if you accept it.
                I would agree with this. The problem is that the non-believer has his own idea of what 'wonderful' is and the Christian on the other hand is prepared to accept the Makers view of what 'wonderful' is and so this parallel is false.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                  First off, science can't say if you are wonderful or not. That is an outside idea you bring to the science. Science cannot detect or measure wonder.
                  In a sense, yes. Science cannot measure wonder, there is no device for determining wonder.

                  However, science can give us incredible insights into the world, and these things can and should inspire wonder.
                  The Christian message is also not that you are worthless. If you were worthless, there would be no point in Christ dying for you. As for worship, the Christian message is you are fallen, but you can be lifted up to be seated in the Heavens, but only if you accept it.
                  Okay, worthless was an exergeration. Let us stick with "flawed", "broken" and "sinful" as per the card the girl is holding. Or "fallen" if you prefer.
                  The problem on the other side is so much fundamentalism does worship science as the way, the truth, and the life. If something isn't scientific, it's not true supposedly. Who needs philosophy and metaphysics and history?

                  No. I am not joking. I encounter this kind of mindset regularly.
                  I have not encountered it, but will say that it too is wrong.
                  How does this show superiority?
                  How does " he shall rule over thee" show the husband will be superior? Are you really asking that?
                  Same question.
                  Selling your son is just not done. They are too precious. But if times are desparate, sell your daughter. Sons are more important than daughters
                  If this is sexist, it's towards boys! Girls get the extra time and attention from the mother. Boys don't get that.
                  Seriously? Spin it how you like, it is saying a woman who gives birth to a girl will; be more unclean than one who gives birth to a boy. That girls are unclean is a big message in the Bible, which bring us to:

                  You might want to check and notice similar standards apply to men with uncleanliness.
                  Men do not menstrate, so I have no idea what you mean by this.


                  Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.

                  There are plenty more. Can you name any of the women on the ark? Any of Adam and Eve's daughters?



                  Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
                  This shows superiority how?
                  The woman is punished, the man is not.
                  Same question.
                  It shows women are generally considered not even important enough to warrant being named.
                  The first two both allow a woman to work outside the home. Not a problem. The third I note has a reputation for being quite crazy so I really don't care what they say.
                  Can you find any Christian websites promoting wives going out to work?
                  No. I think you'll find the view you think exceptional is more common than you think.
                  I hope it is.
                  Sure. I can do that some later on.
                  Great.

                  And I will consider it a strawman until you do.
                  That depends on what you mean. Do you mean is it wrong to desire her purely for sex? Yes. If you just see her as a sex object, that is wrong. Is it wrong to desire her? No. Yet in Jesus's saying, it is said that if you look at a woman to lust. A man can't control the first thought always that goes into his head, but he has more power what he does with it. If you look at a woman just to satisfy your own desire, then the idea is that if you could get away with it in a cost-benefit analysis, you would do whatever it took to get sex with her, even rape. That is also why hating your brother is condemned the same way. If hatred is there, it means that if you could get away with it, you would murder.
                  You are arguing that lustful thoughts are a step towards rape. I can see your point, but I am sure pretty much every man has lustful thought, that is just the way they are, and very, very few become rapists.

                  However, the real problem here is that Jesus said those lustful thought are as bad as actually committing adultery. Do you actuallyt think that that is the case?

                  By making the thought of it a sin, Jesus is setting us up to fail. He is setting a standard that very, very few can achieve. And this brings us back to the first point, that Christianity seeks to convince us we are fallen. It has to, because what it offers is redemption, and the only people wo need redemption are those who have sinned.

                  Step 1: Convince everyone they are fallen, sinful
                  Step 2: Offer Jesus to save them
                  I don't have a problem with divorcees marrying and having sex provided there was a valid reason for divorce and it takes place within marriage.
                  I thought Jesus said it was adultery.
                  It sure is. That's because sex is something sacred and powerful. Why treat it lightly? It's too good for that.
                  Right. The Bible says sex is sacred and powerful, therefore we should only have sex under the restrictions the Bible prescribes.
                  My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
                    In a sense, yes. Science cannot measure wonder, there is no device for determining wonder.

                    However, science can give us incredible insights into the world, and these things can and should inspire wonder.
                    They can, but those are not the area of science. Science cannot say the child is wonderful. That's metaphysics.

                    Okay, worthless was an exergeration. Let us stick with "flawed", "broken" and "sinful" as per the card the girl is holding. Or "fallen" if you prefer.
                    Yes we are. Fallen from a great position and still loved and pursued. We are never written off as a whole. The reality drawn is just that, reality, unless you want to say you know some perfect human beings and not just ones who think they are perfect.



                    How does " he shall rule over thee" show the husband will be superior? Are you really asking that?
                    Yes I am. If I go to work somewhere, I have a boss who rules over me. Does that mean that my boss is superior in his humanity to me?

                    Selling your son is just not done. They are too precious. But if times are desparate, sell your daughter. Sons are more important than daughters
                    Who says it's not done? But the daughters were also how families would be united. In fact, the passage says the daughter will not go out as the son does, which means a son could be sold. The daughter would get special treatment. If any of this was sexist, it was sexist towards the sons.

                    Seriously? Spin it how you like, it is saying a woman who gives birth to a girl will; be more unclean than one who gives birth to a boy. That girls are unclean is a big message in the Bible, which bring us to:
                    No. It's not spin. It's stating the facts. The daughter gets more time and attention from the woman than the son does.


                    Men do not menstrate, so I have no idea what you mean by this.
                    I said similar. Not identical. Check what happens when a man has a nightly emission for instance. Women don't have that, but similar restrictions apply.


                    Leviticus 19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.
                    Let's look at the passage.

                    20 If a man has sexual relations with a woman who is a slave, designated for another man but not ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held. They shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed; 21 but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram as guilt offering. 22 And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he committed; and the sin he committed shall be forgiven him.

                    Let's see. "They" shall not be put to death and who has to come and make the offering? The man. Who has to have atonement made for him? The man. Who is said to have committed the sin? The man.

                    Yep. That's really anti-female.

                    There are plenty more. Can you name any of the women on the ark? Any of Adam and Eve's daughters?
                    No. The point?




                    The woman is punished, the man is not.

                    Unless you read the next few verses....

                    It shows women are generally considered not even important enough to warrant being named.
                    Women often weren't named because the genealogical line did not pass through the woman. It passed through the man. Numerous women are named in the Bible and are named in positive light. Especially Ruth and Esther.

                    Can you find any Christian websites promoting wives going out to work?
                    I think the two you showed did just that. They left it to be a woman's decision.


                    Great.

                    And I will consider it a strawman until you do.
                    Here's a couple examples.

                    http://www.miltontimmons.com/SexandSin.html
                    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/...ign-in-africa/

                    And then some say "We value sex but only if it makes babies" and matters of that such. Sadly, some Christians in church history have held less than noble views of sex like Augustine and Tertullian.

                    You are arguing that lustful thoughts are a step towards rape. I can see your point, but I am sure pretty much every man has lustful thought, that is just the way they are, and very, very few become rapists.
                    Absolutely, but what is stopping them? It's a cost-benefit analysis. If they could get away with it with zero consequences and they knew it, how many men would rape? That's why you deal with the problem at the heart level. I think Proverbs 5 has excellent advice here.

                    15 Drink water from your own cistern,
                    flowing water from your own well.
                    16 Should your springs be scattered abroad,
                    streams of water in the streets?
                    17 Let them be for yourself alone,
                    and not for sharing with strangers.
                    18 Let your fountain be blessed,
                    and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
                    19 a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
                    May her breasts satisfy you at all times;
                    may you be intoxicated always by her love.
                    20 Why should you be intoxicated, my son, by another woman
                    and embrace the bosom of an adulteress?
                    21 For human ways are under the eyes of the Lord,
                    and he examines all their paths.
                    22 The iniquities of the wicked ensnare them,
                    and they are caught in the toils of their sin.
                    23 They die for lack of discipline,
                    and because of their great folly they are lost.

                    However, the real problem here is that Jesus said those lustful thought are as bad as actually committing adultery. Do you actuallyt think that that is the case?
                    He did? No. He said you have already committed adultery in your heart. Taking it the next step is definitely worse. One of the best commentaries you'll find on the Sermon on the Mount is Dallas Willard's in "The Divine Conspiracy" where he points out that, yes, acting on it is worse.

                    By making the thought of it a sin, Jesus is setting us up to fail. He is setting a standard that very, very few can achieve. And this brings us back to the first point, that Christianity seeks to convince us we are fallen. It has to, because what it offers is redemption, and the only people wo need redemption are those who have sinned.
                    Yes, the standard is very high, but that would only matter if you thought that Jesus was authoritative on the matter. You're also incorrect. It's not a standard few can achieve. It's a standard none can achieve. Christianity also doesn't need to convince me I'm fallen. I already know I have a lot of kinks to work out of me. All of this is irrelevant though if Jesus was found to be a false messiah.

                    People didn't go to Jesus for inner guilt. It not only made no sense to them, but for forgiveness, there were loads of other places to go.

                    Step 1: Convince everyone they are fallen, sinful
                    Step 2: Offer Jesus to save them
                    That's a more modern way. It's not really the way that I see in Scripture done. Sure, forgiveness is talked about, but the center proclamation is the resurrection.

                    I thought Jesus said it was adultery.
                    It depends on the reason for the divorce. If you have a situation where you just divorce because you no longer feel the same way or something like that, that is not a valid reason.

                    Right. The Bible says sex is sacred and powerful, therefore we should only have sex under the restrictions the Bible prescribes.
                    Yes. We should keep it where it belongs and enjoy it there. It's not unrealistic. Several of us do that regularly.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                      I would agree with this. The problem is that the non-believer has his own idea of what 'wonderful' is and the Christian on the other hand is prepared to accept the Makers view of what 'wonderful' is and so this parallel is false.
                      By "parallel = false," I think you mean every non-believer's idea of "wonder" differs from the Christian's.

                      I think Nick is pointing out that one's wonder or sense of wonder is not quite wholly apt for scientific treatment.
                      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                      [T]he truth Iím after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -ó Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yes. A scientist can have wonder and should in fact, but that does not mean the wonder is scientific.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
                          By "parallel = false," I think you mean every non-believer's idea of "wonder" differs from the Christian's.

                          I think Nick is pointing out that one's wonder or sense of wonder is not quite wholly apt for scientific treatment.
                          I wasn't restating Nick's point but making my own.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                            They can, but those are not the area of science. Science cannot say the child is wonderful. That's metaphysics..
                            It is a conclusion (albeit a metaphysical one if you like) we can draw from the findings of science.
                            Yes we are. Fallen from a great position and still loved and pursued. We are never written off as a whole. The reality drawn is just that, reality, unless you want to say you know some perfect human beings and not just ones who think they are perfect.
                            My claim is that the vast majority of humans do not deserve hell. The claim of Christianity is that by default we all do. That is a big difference.
                            Yes I am. If I go to work somewhere, I have a boss who rules over me. Does that mean that my boss is superior in his humanity to me?
                            Yes, that guy is your superior. He is not your superior in his humanity, only in the workplace. Because he is only your boss in the workplace.

                            However, the Bible makes a general claim for all humanity; women will obey, the husband is superior. Can you see a difference here?
                            Who says it's not done?
                            Sorry, I mean not done as in not the done thing. Yes, it probably happened, but it was not socially acceptable, and more importantly in this context, it was not sanctioned by the Bible.
                            But the daughters were also how families would be united. In fact, the passage says the daughter will not go out as the son does, which means a son could be sold. The daughter would get special treatment. If any of this was sexist, it was sexist towards the sons.
                            Do you mean this:

                            Exodus 21:7 "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. 8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her[b] for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her. 9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. 10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. 11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.

                            I read it somewhat differently. This is not about selling sons at all; such a practice is not condoned. This is comparing a Hebrew girl/woman (who was sold by her father) to any other slave in her owner's household. It is saying that such a slave is to be treated differently, and while the other slaves go work in the fields, she is to be put to work in the house (and specifically the bedroom...).
                            No. It's not spin. It's stating the facts. The daughter gets more time and attention from the woman than the son does.
                            The passage is focused on ritual cleanliness. It may be a consequence that the daughter gets more attention, but the verse is not there to ensure that happens (and thus your argument looks like spin to me). The verse is saying that a woman who has given birth to a girl is even more dirty than one who has given birth to a girl.
                            I said similar. Not identical. Check what happens when a man has a nightly emission for instance. Women don't have that, but similar restrictions apply.
                            The man is unclean until evening (Lev 15:16-18). If a women menstrates, she is unclean a week.

                            Is that what you call similar?
                            Let's look at the passage.

                            20 If a man has sexual relations with a woman who is a slave, designated for another man but not ransomed or given her freedom, an inquiry shall be held. They shall not be put to death, since she has not been freed; 21 but he shall bring a guilt offering for himself to the Lord, at the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram as guilt offering. 22 And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he committed; and the sin he committed shall be forgiven him.

                            Let's see. "They" shall not be put to death and who has to come and make the offering? The man. Who has to have atonement made for him? The man. Who is said to have committed the sin? The man.

                            Yep. That's really anti-female.
                            My bad. The KJV has quite a different translation, that includes "she shall be scourged", which is what I was founding my argument on. Looks like yours is the better translation.
                            No. The point?
                            The men were considered important. The women were not.
                            Women often weren't named because the genealogical line did not pass through the woman. It passed through the man.
                            Of course it did. The men were considered important. The women were not.
                            Numerous women are named in the Bible and are named in positive light. Especially Ruth and Esther.
                            Sure. but can you really say the number is comparable with a straight face? Can you really claim women are held in the same light?
                            Here's a couple examples.

                            http://www.miltontimmons.com/SexandSin.html
                            http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/...ign-in-africa/

                            And then some say "We value sex but only if it makes babies" and matters of that such. Sadly, some Christians in church history have held less than noble views of sex like Augustine and Tertullian.
                            The article in CounterPunch says:

                            "The Christian rightís sex war in sub-Sahara Africa is being waged on two fronts - against homosexuality and a womanís right to control her pregnancy."

                            It is not saying Christianity is anti-sex, but rather homophobic and anti-birth-control.

                            With regards to the first, yes, there the claim is more general that Christianity is anti-sex. What is interesting in that article is how comprehensively the author argues that that is the case. So it seems that some people do think Christianity is anti-sex and they have good reason to do so.
                            Absolutely, but what is stopping them? It's a cost-benefit analysis. If they could get away with it with zero consequences and they knew it, how many men would rape? That's why you deal with the problem at the heart level. I think Proverbs 5 has excellent advice here.
                            Wow. So you are saying that if you were not a Christian, you would rape any woman you thought you could get away with?

                            There are about 5 billion people on this planet who are not Christians, half of them male, and the vast majority are not rapists. That may surprise you.

                            The reality is that the vast majority of men can look at a girl without then raping her.
                            He did? No. He said you have already committed adultery in your heart. Taking it the next step is definitely worse. One of the best commentaries you'll find on the Sermon on the Mount is Dallas Willard's in "The Divine Conspiracy" where he points out that, yes, acting on it is worse.
                            I would rather take Jesus' own words over the opinion of a man of unknown bias.

                            27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
                            28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


                            Reads to me like God thinks the two are equivalent in their sin.
                            Yes, the standard is very high, but that would only matter if you thought that Jesus was authoritative on the matter. You're also incorrect. It's not a standard few can achieve. It's a standard none can achieve. Christianity also doesn't need to convince me I'm fallen. I already know I have a lot of kinks to work out of me. All of this is irrelevant though if Jesus was found to be a false messiah.
                            Yeah, my bad. Everyone has "a lot of kinks to work out" of them, so everyone deserves to go to hell. That is the message of Chistianity. Hence the meme.
                            People didn't go to Jesus for inner guilt. It not only made no sense to them, but for forgiveness, there were loads of other places to go.
                            Not sure what you mean here.
                            That's a more modern way. It's not really the way that I see in Scripture done. Sure, forgiveness is talked about, but the center proclamation is the resurrection.
                            It is a big feature of the OT too. How many prophets told the Jews they were sinful, and whatever calamity of the day was God punishing them? Something that annoyed the religious leaders when Jesus was alive was that he would forgive sins. That was strictly God's remit. The priests' job was to convince everyone they were sinful, and then God's role was to forgive - if you worshiped dutifully.

                            Sure the "center proclamation" is the resurrection; does that mean it is the only message in the NT? Of course not!
                            It depends on the reason for the divorce. If you have a situation where you just divorce because you no longer feel the same way or something like that, that is not a valid reason.
                            What are valid reasons then?
                            Yes. We should keep it where it belongs and enjoy it there. It's not unrealistic. Several of us do that regularly.
                            And therefore everyone must do that too? Why?

                            You are happy in your marriage, therefore gay people are not allowed to have sex with each other? Do please talk me through the logic here.

                            Let us remember that the Biblical punishment for adultery and gay sex was death. Noctural emissions are dirty. Genitals are shameful (Jer 13:26). Salvation is for those "who have not defiled themselves with women" (Rev. 14:4). Ideally, according to Paul "It is good for a man not to touch a woman", marriage is merely the lesser evil.
                            My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View Post
                              Absolutely, but what is stopping them? It's a cost-benefit analysis. If they could get away with it with zero consequences and they knew it, how many men would rape? That's why you deal with the problem at the heart level. I think Proverbs 5 has excellent advice here.
                              As an addendum to my post, I thought I would post a few bits from the article you found, responding further to this comment by you. The basic thrust of it is that sexual repression by Christianity causes all sorts of problem. I am quoting from page three (it is worth pointing out, it was written in 1985, based on a series of talks given in 1967).
                              http://www.miltontimmons.com/SexandSin3.html

                              The findings of this volume and all others available seem to support that hypothesis.
                              In the Kinsey Report on Sex Offenders it was found that in every kind of sex crime,
                              except one, the man had grown up in a sexually repressive atmosphere; he had little
                              heterosexual experience during adolescence, and he tended to be dogmatically
                              moralistic and puritanical.
                              ...
                              The only exception to this personality type was the simple rapist (as opposed to the
                              child-rapist, and the sadistic rapist). He was not necessarily puritanical, he was just
                              stupid - one who took what he wanted when he wanted it, without enough
                              intelligence to think through the consequences. But even in this case, the offenders
                              claimed that if there had been more accessible outlets available, such as prostitutes,
                              they would not have resorted to rape.
                              ...
                              Finally, oppressive sexual doctrines and social attitudes create not only sex offenses,
                              but violence in general.
                              ...
                              Doctors Stan and Inge Hegeler, in The ABZ of Love, say that the Scandinavian
                              countries have the most liberal sexual attitudes in the world, and also the lowest
                              crime rate in Europe. ... Result: In
                              Copenhagen, a city the size of Houston, there was one murder in 1965. In Houston,
                              the heart of the Bible Belt, two hundred and one!
                              My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, Yesterday, 10:06 AM
                              1 response
                              16 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 10-16-2020, 09:00 AM
                              0 responses
                              13 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 10-15-2020, 09:44 AM
                              3 responses
                              36 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post ReformedApologist  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 10-14-2020, 09:09 AM
                              0 responses
                              13 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Apologiaphoenix  
                              Started by Apologiaphoenix, 10-12-2020, 09:02 AM
                              7 responses
                              77 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post ReformedApologist  
                              Working...
                              X