Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Pastor Protection Bill derail
Collapse
X
-
"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostCan I make a Modest Proposal joke?"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View Postit apparently was a complete and shocking surprise to Starlight, after all those years in churches, and studying the Bible, that there were some Christian who thought homosexual acts were sinful.
I had anticipated seeing overall Christian public support for equal rights for oppressed minorities, and Christians in general to be leading the campaigns for gay rights, with the non-Christians the ones who needed to be convinced. Instead the Christians were the ones publicly and actively trying to oppress the minority group and deny them equal rights...
The issue was not seeing that different interpretations existed - I was already well aware of many different interpretations of the bible. The issue was realizing the relative frequency with which some of those different interpretations were held by various Christians world-wide and what they were prepared to do politically because of it.
Interestingly though, this is something that appears to be in the process of changing rapidly. Already Christians in the West have reached a 50%-50% level of support for same-sex marriage, and the rapidness of the change leads me to believe that in about 10 years time the existence of same-sex marriage will be taken for granted in the vast majority of churches. It's still extremely disappointing however to see the Church being led by society on moral issues rather than the Church leading society, and serves only to confirm my view that modern society has advanced beyond the morality of Christianity, and that Christianity in our society is now serving to impede moral progress rather than inspiring it."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostInterestingly though, this is something that appears to be in the process of changing rapidly. Already Christians in the West have reached a 50%-50% level of support for same-sex marriage, and the rapidness of the change leads me to believe that in about 10 years time the existence of same-sex marriage will be taken for granted in the vast majority of churches.
It's still extremely disappointing however to see the Church being led by society on moral issues rather than the Church leading society,
and serves only to confirm my view that modern society has advanced beyond the morality of Christianity, and that Christianity in our society is now serving to impede moral progress rather than inspiring it.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostSure, but I doubt he'd understand it.If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christianbookworm View PostIf young children and some animals having the same level of intelligence somehow makes it okay to kill babies, then why not eat them?
My reaction is the opposite. If chimps and dolphins are as intelligent as young children, then that could be a good argument to stop killing chimps and dolphins. (Wait, I think I can hear PETA screaming "That's what we've been saying, you chimp and dolphin murderers!!!")Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yttrium View PostToo easy to catch diseases. You'd have to... AHEM!
My reaction is the opposite. If chimps and dolphins are as intelligent as young children, then that could be a good argument to stop killing chimps and dolphins. (Wait, I think I can hear PETA screaming "That's what we've been saying, you chimp and dolphin murderers!!!")If it weren't for the Resurrection of Jesus, we'd all be in DEEP TROUBLE!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThe more a Church (or Christian) adheres to the Bible, the less accepting of unrepentant sin they will be.
The letter approach, which we can see exemplified in the behavior of the Pharisees generally involves condemning people and approaches an moral issues by finding the whatever is deemed to be the single most relevant verse in the religious text and apply that as a standard for condemnation. This approach is typically wedded to a divine-command theory of morality - where anything is moral or not moral simply because God says so, and therefore we have no way of knowing if any given thing is moral or not except by looking to see what God has told us about that specific thing. People who enjoy condemning others commonly find this view very attractive, as it allows them to construct a long list of things "God said" are wrong and go around condemning people who are in the wrong. People who are an entrenched part of any religious establishment also tend to be attracted to this sort of view.
The spirit approach, which see can see exemplified in Jesus and Paul, generally involves reasoning based on very abstract moral principles such as "love your neighbor". It is generally prepared to ignore the letter of the law on issues due to holding the general good of humanity to be more important. It is usually not associated with a divine-command view of morality, and may be associated instead with any other theory of objective moral. It potentially allows for quite revolutionary reasoning: To stop following the entire OT law, to overthrow the institution of slavery, etc. People who want a more permissive form of morality often find this kind of view attractive. Similarly those who seek a view of morality that has internal logical coherence, and which is not based on the potentially arbitrary whims of God as to what to prohibit or allow, will typically prefer this view. As will liberals and revolutionaries.
Both approaches are endorsed in various different parts of the bible. The OT levitical law, is of course, an example of the letter approach, where the commands of God are recorded as rules to be followed strictly. Whereas Jesus and Paul endorse a more reflective approach where abstract moral principles are held to be of central importance, and action in any given situation may contradict the recorded rules due to the abstract moral principles superseding the written rules."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIndeed, there are two general types of approaches that religious people can have to moral issues: The letter, and the spirit.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIt's still extremely disappointing however to see the Church not letting itself bebeingled by society on moral issues rather thantheSociety letting the Church leadingsociety, and serves only to confirm my view that modern societyhas advanced beyondrefusedthemoralityof Christianity,and that Christianity in our society is now serving to impede immoral progress rather than letting the world inspire[strike]ing it[strike][b]Christianity into it's immorality .Last edited by RumTumTugger; 04-28-2015, 07:43 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI'm not talking about religious people. I'm talking about people who believe the Bible is the Word of God.
You've approached the bible looking for a list of things to label sin, and sure enough the Bible is quite large includes many such lists. And so you feel like you're following the bible by using such lists. You get to feel religious and feel you're following God's word.
But you're not following the bible properly by doing such a thing. You've missed the fundamental point of New Testament morality: That that entire approach is the wrong approach. You're an OT Christian and the Pharisees would be proud of your religiosity."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIndeed, there are two general types of approaches that religious people can have to moral issues: The letter, and the spirit.
The spirit approach, which see can see exemplified in Jesus and Paul, generally involves reasoning based on very abstract moral principles such as "love your neighbor".Middle-of-the-road swing voter. Feel free to sway my opinion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostYes, so am I. I'm saying that at a fundamental level your theory of morality and subsequent way of approaching the bible on moral subjects is completely wrong and not informed by the teachings of the bible.
You've approached the bible looking for a list of things to label sin, and sure enough the Bible is quite large includes many such lists. And so you feel like you're following the bible by using such lists. You get to feel religious and feel you're following God's word.
But you're not following the bible properly by doing such a thing. You've missed the fundamental point of New Testament morality: That that entire approach is the wrong approach. You're an OT Christian and the Pharisees would be proud of your religiosity.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yttrium View PostThe problem here is that Paul condemns homosexual acts in his letters.
However, Paul also takes slavery for granted in his letters. Nowhere did he call for Christians to abolish the institution of slavery, but rather simply asked them to treat their slaves kindly. Yet when we read today his words that in Christ there is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, we can see in them certain ideals that were not necessarily recognized by Paul himself. The germ of the idea of the end of slavery is in those words, but not explicitly advocated by him. Likewise the germ of the idea of the end of discrimination between the sexes, and similarly of equality for gay people, is in those words, but not explicitly advocated by him.
Part of the beauty of abstract moral principles is that the person who enunciates them may not themselves understand the full implications of them, and later generations through reflection on them can work toward a better world.
This is how being anti-slavery can be the correct Christian position even though the biblical law institutes slavery and never once calls for its abolition: Because the underlying principles of love which Christians are called to use, when drawn out to their logical end, are in flat contradiction to the existence of the institution of slavery and serve to override the letter of the biblical law accordingly.Last edited by Starlight; 04-28-2015, 07:58 PM."I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThat's debatable.
However, Paul also takes slavery for granted in his letters.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
165 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Yesterday, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
400 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
198 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Yesterday, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
383 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Yesterday, 11:08 AM
|
Comment