The W
Views: 99139022
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.9.14 1528
The W - Current Events & Politics - Trial could lead towards legalization polygamy (Page 2)
This thread has 5 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.86
Pages: Prev 1 2
(113 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (25 total)
Amos Cochran
Lap cheong








Since: 28.8.09

Since last post: 83 days
Last activity: 3 days
#21 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.13
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    So do you interpret the entire Bible this literally and infallibly? You approve of, nay demand, the public stoning of people who commit specific sins, etc.?


This is the bit that ALWAYS gets me when it comes to the "homosexuality is a sin - the Bible said so!" argument. The Bible says a lot of things are sins - working on Sundays, planting two different crops side-by-side, and so on.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 41 days
Last activity: 41 days
#22 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.58
    Originally posted by AWArulz
    c: I do not think any religious laws should apply to those who are unbelievers except those whom the majority of people believe is valid - for example, many religious also ban murder. I am not for removing that from the public arena again (there were times when it was, essentially, legal). So no, pulling out random old testament penalties for adultery is not my desire.



It seems to me that as soon as you decide any one part of the Bible isn't authoritative, you undermine the credibility of the entire book as some sort of ultimate authority.

If you've decided some things aren't really relevant or necessary, why can't others decide the same thing about that passage that you think forbids homosexuality? Why are only the parts YOU think aren't necessary open to interpretation?

I don't think the fact that it's the Old Testament matters. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus is quoted as saying:


    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


I have always seen this interpreted as meaning the New Testament doesn't suddenly make the Old Testament obsolete. I don't doubt that there are some people who interpret this differently, but I think the view I offered a majority opinion, if the brief Google search for the passage I just did is any indication. At least, a lot of people read it that way.

I understand that you're not saying you wish to force others to live by your own views, but I'm not saying you are. I want to get to the bottom of what makes you decide this passage MUST be true while that one, well, god won't care if we overlook that.

If I were to say I DO support public stoning of adulterers, what would your opinion of my statement be? Would you think I was crazy? Would you admire my devotion to god? Something else?

Or if I were to say I hate people of a certain race, but I don't support laws acting on these racist opinions. It's still racism. Not all discrimination has its roots in the laws of a country.

(edited by TheBucsFan on 25.11.10 1052)

AWArulz
Knackwurst








Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 16 hours
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#23 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.61
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan

    It seems to me that as soon as you decide any one part of the Bible isn't authoritative, you undermine the credibility of the entire book as some sort of ultimate authority.



I didn't say it wasn't authoritative. It's just that we do not live in the theocracy that was ongoing in the Old Testament. Jesus himself was convicted by the religious authorities of a capital sin, Blasphemy. The penalty proscribed by the OT is death by stoning. But the religious leaders of the time were unable to execute him because they were not a theocracy, they were under the rules of a empire, Rome. They managed to convince the civil authorities that Jesus was guilty of Insurrection or something similar so that the Roman government would execute him. We live under the same place - Let's take a different, punishable by death in the old testament offense - Adultery. You of course know that there are essentially few laws against this in the US - because we are a society of laws apart from religious meaning, supposedly. There is in your relationship with God and in your relationship with people (Jesus broke down the entire Law that is being brought up here as "love God, Love other people"), a penalty for that. Pretty much just like the Bible says.


    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.


a fulfillment of a promise is not always the same as the promise. For example, if someone told you you were going to receive a really cool HD TV set when they came, you might be really excited. But if they came and they said "That TV set will be here any minute" and left it at that, you would eventually lose hope in it ever coming. The Law, the prophets and Jesus' fulfillment of them is kind of like that. He came, brought the TV set, so to speak, and it changed everything. You do write 2010 right?

    Originally posted by Bucs

    If I were to say I DO support public stoning of adulterers, what would your opinion of my statement be? Would you think I was crazy? Would you admire my devotion to god? Something else?


all for it, if you can get it passed via the constitution of the country you're living in. I am for banning wearing wool and cotton at the same time too, IF you can get it passed. We have similarly silly laws.





We'll be back right after order has been restored here in the Omni Center.

That the universe was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms, I will no more believe than that the accidental jumbling of the alphabet would fall into a most ingenious treatise of philosophy - Swift

Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 421 days
Last activity: 381 days
#24 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.69
    Originally posted by Amos Cochran
      Originally posted by TheBucsFan
      So do you interpret the entire Bible this literally and infallibly? You approve of, nay demand, the public stoning of people who commit specific sins, etc.?


    This is the bit that ALWAYS gets me when it comes to the "homosexuality is a sin - the Bible said so!" argument. The Bible says a lot of things are sins - working on Sundays, planting two different crops side-by-side, and so on.

I agree. I think the big issue is that people are taking something written between 1700 and 2900 years ago in other languages (in some cases translated multiple times from one language to another; for example, the name "Jesus" is the Latin transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name that is more properly akin to "Joshua"). I can't make sense of Shakespeare, and that was written barely 400 years ago in English! We can't agree on what the writers of the Constitution meant by the Second Amendment, and that was written 220 years ago. To think that you know exactly what the Bible says seems far-fetched.
TheOldMan
Landjager








Since: 13.2.03
From: Chicago

Since last post: 84 days
Last activity: 2 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.38
Seems that Christianists who want Biblical authority to supersede government (secular) rule are making the 'opposite side of the coin' argument that those in other lands make when instilling Sharia Law over territories they control.

Whatever your ancient authority for claiming the institution for you and your own group of believers, it seems clear that "marriage" is a universal concept with long usage and tradition in all cultures. From a practical standpoint, it's now impossible to reserve the term for any one group, or faith. Of course there is a distinction between civil and religious union, in Christianity it's called "holy matrimony". In addition to the civil usage, there is a religious sanction that is granted according to the practice and tenets of different faiths (Mazel tov!) for practitioners of those faiths.

(Of course President Bartlet said it better: Click Here (youtube.com) )

Holy matrimony is beyond government approval now, at least in the United States. The government cannot force any faith to sanction a civil marriage. But marriage is a universal concept, and for reasons that include property rights, tax purposes, and issues such as hospital visitation.. for these public policy reasons marriage should be available to couples in committed relationships that wish to enter into it.


(edited by TheOldMan on 25.11.10 2030)


Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread rated: 4.86
Pages: Prev 1 2
Thread ahead: The Feds seize a number of sites
Next thread: the Koreas have been attacking each other
Previous thread: At Least 345 dead in stampede at Cambodian festival
(113 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I just want to point out that no one's stopping any TV news reporter from interviewing Scott's professor rather than some celebrity. Do you think Bill O'Reilly did a long interview with Garofolo because A) Scott's professor turned him down; B)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Trial could lead towards legalization polygamy (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.099 seconds.