welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Bible Topics
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But the question being asked isn't just about sex, it also involves the concept of marriage pretty intensely, which has changed form dramatically enough to be a new thing.

"Back then" a marriage could almost be considered a transferral of ownership. The father sold his daughter to her new owner. If she was not virginal, that would break an implicit requirement of the contract - pretty much literally damaged goods, which would shame the family. The Deuteronomy passage tf pointed out discusses the situation in exactly this way. The problem is with breaking a rule of the marriage contract rather than a blanket indictment of sex.

PsycoMonkey wrote:
But does that mean premarital sexual relations with the woman you choose to marry are wrong?

I would say, that if you are honestly using the Christian Bible for guidance, it shouldn't be a matter of: "Does it say I can't?" as much as evaluating the overall attitudes it seems to espouse... which mostly involve taking the idea of sex very seriously.

Regarding the specific case of sex before marriage, I would chalk it up as being risky, but not necessarily wrong. If you are sure you will marry, and she is sure, and you both want to have sex, and you are ready for the consequences, then go ahead. If you are still unsure, or still deciding, or not prepared for the possibility of children, then you should wait.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Some Guy!



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:05 am    Post subject: Re: Bible Topics Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
The difference between sex and those things is that sex had been invented well before Biblical times and it actually was something the Bible had a thing or two about which to say.


Undoubtedly true. Let us consiuder then the bibles stances on slavery, multi-religion societies, personal liberty, observational science, taxation, working on the sabbath, and capital punishment.

I think it's pretty clear that it is no longer a tome whos decrees we should blindly trust. There are many goods espoused in it yes, but I suspect you'd agree those are the things that seem pretty prevelent today, irrespective of the biblical code.
_________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
(Sorry I can't spell)
-!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12195
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:17 am    Post subject: Re: Bible Topics Reply with quote

Some Guy! wrote:
Undoubtedly true. Let us consiuder then the bibles stances on slavery, multi-religion societies, personal liberty, observational science, taxation, working on the sabbath, and capital punishment.

Which does not follow at all from discussions on advanced technology. You see my point?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Some Guy!



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:23 am    Post subject: Re: Bible Topics Reply with quote

WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Some Guy! wrote:
Undoubtedly true. Let us consider then the Bible's stances on slavery, multi-religion societies, personal liberty, observational science, taxation, working on the sabbath, and capital punishment.

Which does not follow at all from discussions on advanced technology. You see my point?


Absolutely, and I concede to it. As such, I offer other examples that additionally predate biblical times but, if we consider the biblical stance, are by modern standards of conduct preposterous.

[edit] Stoning for adultery? Killing your brother for holding another God before your own? Reasonable prices to sell your daughter into slavery for?

edit x2 - Germs av
_________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
(Sorry I can't spell)
-!


Last edited by Some Guy! on Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Amilam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 922

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:31 am    Post subject: Re: Bible Topics Reply with quote

Some Guy! wrote:
WheelsOfConfusion wrote:
Some Guy! wrote:
Undoubtedly true. Let us consider then the Bible's stances on slavery, multi-religion societies, personal liberty, observational science, taxation, working on the sabbath, and capital punishment.

Which does not follow at all from discussions on advanced technology. You see my point?


Absolutely, and I concede to it. As such, I offer other examples that additionally predate biblical times but, if we consider the biblical stance, are by modern standards of conduct preposterous.

[edit] Stoning for adultery? Killing your brother for holding another God before your own? Reasonable prices to sell your daughter into slavery for?


And the American forefathers decided that slaves should be counted as 3/5th of a person. America’s conception of rights has come so far that articles like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights obviously no longer applies.
_________________
"And then the sea was closed again, above us."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Some Guy!



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:33 am    Post subject: Re: Bible Topics Reply with quote

Amilam wrote:
And the American forefathers decided that slaves should be counted as 3/5th of a person. America’s conception of rights has come so far that articles like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights obviously no longer applies.


Fortunately, unlike the bible, the consitution has a method of being able to keep it up to date. While this risks things like preventing gay marriage, it also allows for things like women's and black sufferage to enter into the picture. If the bible had a similar vein, it might not be so, out of date.
_________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
(Sorry I can't spell)
-!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Amilam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 922

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay why not look at the stupendous progression of the Constitution over its 200 year lifespan during which humanity has at least technologically and materially advanced more than the previous history of humanity combined:

11th Immunity of states to foreign suits March 4, 1794 February 7, 1795
12th Revision of presidential election procedures December 9, 1803 June 15, 1804
13th Abolition of slavery January 31, 1865 December 6, 1865
14th Citizenship, state due process, state equal protection June 13, 1866 July 9, 1868[3]
15th Racial suffrage February 26, 1869 February 3, 1870[4]
16th Federal income tax July 12, 1909 February 3, 1913
17th Direct election to the United States Senate May 13, 1912 April 8, 1913
18th Prohibition of alcohol (Repealed by 21st amendment) December 18, 1917 January 16, 1919
19th Women's suffrage June 4, 1919 August 18, 1920
20th Term Commencement for congress (January 3) and president (January 20) March 2, 1932 January 23, 1933
21st Repeal of Eighteenth Amendment; state and local prohibition permitted February 20, 1933 December 5, 1933
22nd Presidential term limit March 24, 1947 February 27, 1951
23rd Representation of Washington, DC in Electoral College June 16, 1960 March 29, 1961
24th Suffrage and prohibition of poll taxes September 14, 1962 January 23, 1964
25th Presidential disabilities July 6, 1965 February 23, 1967
26th Age suffrage March 23, 1971 July 1, 1971
27th Variance of congressional compensation September 25, 1789 May 5, 1992[1]

Not particularly impressive from a human right’s perspective. Abolishing slavery and granting equal rights to all humanity regardless of sex and color were ideas whose time had come before the French Revolution.

If you’re really going to stand by your updating point why not look at the New Testament which was meant to fulfill the promise of the Old Testament.
_________________
"And then the sea was closed again, above us."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
John Mytton



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 607

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The ideas may have come before the French Revolution, but so did the American Revolution, which is why you can see some of the ideas in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence. However, ideas take time to be implemented, due to various factors.

Also, what are you arguing about?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Some Guy!



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amilam wrote:
Okay why not look at the stupendous progression of the Constitution over its 200 year lifespan during which humanity has at least technologically and materially advanced more than the previous history of humanity combined:


Well, here you're pretty clearly ignoring the fact that the Constitution relegates law making to the Houses of Congress. Constitutional amendments are incredibly hard to add or subtract, and for that reason, (and so it would not get bogged down with things like the 18th amendment, an unfortunate chain of events) it says Congress shall make the laws, the Judicial shall interpret them, and the Executive shall enforce them. I think it is pretty clear that laws and the practices within the US do a very good job of keeping themselves up to date. Whether you agree with them is moot. But we don't need a constitutional amendment to say how much arsenic should be allowed in public water supplies. Amendments are only necessary for things that become precedents of such importance and magnitude that they are decreed as fundamental freedoms or concepts central to the protection their of.

The Bible, on the other hand, laid out the restrictions and concepts of the day in various manuscripts, only a few of which (arguably the most important at the time) were combined into a particular tome that was then declared The Bible. No method of reinterpretation or adjustment is expressed. Simply, that "these are the ways things should always go, cause they are good ideas right now." What is more, various practices forbidden by some of the texts include in the bible, were supposedly allowed in others. Pre-marital sex, for instance, was actually recommended in the some of the Gnostic texts. It was frowned upon in Rome when the books were being selected, and as such, excluded. So now what you have is people saying that this phrase means this, and that phrase means that, leading to splits that create a new sect every, oh ten minutes or so. People pick and choose their biblical code depending on what things they do or don't want to feel guilty about. If you ask me, that's ridiculous.
_________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
(Sorry I can't spell)
-!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Amilam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 922

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So now what you have is people saying that this phrase means this, and that phrase means that, leading to splits that create a new sect every, oh ten minutes or so. People pick and choose their biblical code depending on what things they do or don't want to feel guilty about. If you ask me, that's ridiculous.


Okay now you're starting to go all over the place. Gnostic texts are interesting but hardly relevant to this topic. To answer JM the point I'm making is that you can't decide that the pillar text in Western civilization is suddenly obsolete because you feel you've reached some new progressive plateau that clash with a few snippets from Deuteronomy. Second, I'm not ignoring the fact the U.S. has legislative powers in addition to the Constitution, but rather making the point that the Constitution figures as the foundational text for the government and culture. Both have passages that don't agree with the Progressive thinking of the moment, but that doesn't mean they can be thrown out. Good luck finding any text that meets this expectation. We would have to torch our entire lexicon every decade or so.

As far as your last point, that's simple human subjectivity, but I'm sure this condition is solely found in Christianity Rolling Eyes
_________________
"And then the sea was closed again, above us."


Last edited by Amilam on Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some Guy wrote:
The Bible, on the other hand, laid out the restrictions and concepts of the day in various manuscripts, only a few of which (arguably the most important at the time) were combined into a particular tome that was then declared The Bible.

You are mixing eras in a way that makes no sense.

The set of restrictions whose relevancy you are contesting were not works from which the early Christians picked and chose "concepts of the day." They are from Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, in the Torah, from the Tanakh, which was very well established as Jewish canon long before Christianity existed.

In a sense, this could work in your point's favor, for being even older, and much more clearly written to a smaller audience with more specific goals in mind, but it should not be confused with the formation of the Christian Bible.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bun bun
Guest





PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the point he's making comes through to me, though. If a modern Christian were to use Leviticus as an argument for why a behaviour should not be tolerated, then everything else is just as valid. Why don't we have a huge anti-work-on-Saturdays-because-it's-immoral movement? Because people pick and choose what they *want* to campaign due to personal prejudice. (Altogether, now....DUHHHH.) These modern fanatics are reacting less to the Bible and more to the Victorian code of morals, which were established due to social more than religious reasons, and had nothing to do with shellfish. It's the same syndrome that allows pagan Winter Solstice rituals into Christmas. I would give fundamentalist Christians more credit if there were a nationwide movement to ban Santa Claus and fir trees, but of course there isn't. Be more frightened, but give more credit.
Back to top
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bun bun wrote:
I think the point he's making comes through to me, though. If a modern Christian were to use Leviticus as an argument for why a behaviour should not be tolerated, then everything else is just as valid. Why don't we have a huge anti-work-on-Saturdays-because-it's-immoral movement? Because people pick and choose what they *want* to campaign due to personal prejudice.

A point he made came through to you. Yes, people who misuse religious texts are idiots. If that was the extent of what Some Guy! said, it wouldn't even have occured to me to disagree.

But that was not his main point, which is that the texts themselves, having been written long ago, are no longer relevant to moral issues of today.

As evidence for that, that the rules in the Bible are strongly bound to issues of the time when it was written, he said that Rome chose a few contemporary texts "arguably the most important at the time" to make their canon.

As I pointed out, the rules he's talking about had been Jewish canon for quite some time. Their inclusion in the Christian Bible, then, do not suggest that they are limited in value to that time, but in fact suggest that they had remained relevant for a length of time already. If anything, that's an argument for their universal value for moral teaching (though a rather weak one).
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Some Guy!



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amilam wrote:
Okay now you're starting to go all over the place. Gnostic texts are interesting but hardly relevant to this topic. To answer JM the point I'm making is that you can't decide that the pillar text in Western civilization is suddenly obsolete because you feel you've reached some new progressive plateau that clash with a few snippets from Deuteronomy. Second, I'm not ignoring the fact the U.S. has legislative powers in addition to the Constitution, but rather making the point that the Constitution figures as the foundational text for the government and culture. Both have passages that don't agree with the Progressive thinking of the moment, but that doesn't mean they can be thrown out. Good luck finding any text that meets this expectation. We would have to torch our entire lexicon every decade or so.

As far as your last point, that's simple human subjectivity, but I'm sure this condition is solely found in Christianity Rolling Eyes


I suppose I have a few admissions and a few questions for you.
Admittedly, my inclusion of the sub point that Gnostic texts were excluded was a side argument at best, but how are they irrelevant to this conversation? Essentially, they were ideals, present at the time, that were ignored. This clearly shows that The Bible is a collection of a certain set of moral codes prevalent at the time of the Bible's 'drafting' to a certain groups of people. A number of those are, if you'll excuse, laughable now. (however, as I concede below, a number of them are still extremely prevalent too).

What elements of the Constitution would you say "don't agree with the Progressive thinking of the moment"?

As for your last point about my last point. You are absolutely correct, of course. This is a feature that does not apply to Christians alone. I think clearly it applies to anyone who disobeys a law today. I suppose my beef with the bible (or the Qur'an, or any other ancient manuscript expressing a certain moral code) is that, if you disobey a law, you are disobeying a principle that your society has decided upon, and has decided to enforce upon you. If you disobey a biblical concept, you are disobeying a moral norm you have chosen to adhere to yourself (at least, if you live in a western society). As such, if you're going to pick and choose things to feel guilty about, why look to some parts of a particular text while ignoring other parts that are just as applicable? It's your moral code, not one that has been forced upon you by your surrounding society. It's as valid as up and deciding one day that you're not going to eat broccoli because you think it's a sin. Those who do adhere to every tenet specified in The Bible are immune to this criticism, (but, they are subject to vast difficulties because they almost cannot function in a 'modern society').

The above is more or less a side rant. My apologies. My main point is: The Bible is not capable of keeping itself up to date, where as the Constitution and its deriving forces, is. Adhering to some aspects of a text that you have chosen and not others, is irrational to me, where as acting against a law decided and enforced without your own approval is understandable. Which brings us to!

Sojobo wrote:
As I pointed out, the rules he's talking about had been Jewish canon for quite some time. Their inclusion in the Christian Bible, then, do not suggest that they are limited in value to that time, but in fact suggest that they had remained relevant for a length of time already. If anything, that's an argument for their universal value for moral teaching (though a rather weak one).


An excellent point. I am glad you clarified as I missed it in your previous post. Honestly, it is one I cannot refute. There is absolutely vast staying power in moral concepts expressed in the Bible. A number of the ideals in it are undoubtedly fundamental even today. Most of them are contained in the general "Golden Rule." However, with regards to biblical standards vs societal ones, generally issues people concern themselves with today about what The Bible says are also issues that people who don't consult the bible are concerned with too. Abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, et al; all of these have grounding in the bible, but are concerns for those who are NOT concerned about the biblical code as well. To me, it seems as though a vast number of people look to the bible for answers so they don't have to bother thinking about the questions themselves. Then, when something happens, rather than taking personal responsibility, they claim that it's God's plan. That last bit there is yet again another little side rant, but I hope it clarifies my stance that appealing to a text that does not take into account modern norms and issues definitely has some serious implications.
_________________
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
-Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
(Sorry I can't spell)
-!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PsycoMonkey



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 447

PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 8:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Bible Topics Reply with quote

Some Guy! wrote:

edit x2 - Germs av



Did you know that all of the comments and requirements and laws in Leviticus were for God's Preists and not the general public?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group