Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why read the Bible literally: take two
Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 306 (241339)
09-08-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Nuggin
09-08-2005 12:44 AM


Re: Quite possible?
What I presented wasn't the only evidence of an early monotheistic culture in China...but anyway, you are right, it is off topic for this thread. Thanks for the guidance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Nuggin, posted 09-08-2005 12:44 AM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Nuggin, posted 09-08-2005 1:30 PM Steve8 has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 306 (241343)
09-08-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by AdminJar
09-08-2005 12:46 PM


Re: Quite possible?
OK, when I catch up with my other threads, I may do that. Thanks for the advice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by AdminJar, posted 09-08-2005 12:46 PM AdminJar has not replied

DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6080 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 183 of 306 (241347)
09-08-2005 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brian
06-27-2005 3:22 PM


Re: Tenatively Rejected
I think that stealing, killing, messing with someone else's spouse, etc., are not good things and should not be done. The admonition to refrain from any practices that does harm to fellow creatures, should be taken literally. The first four commandments deal with a Christian's relationship with God. Those can be ignored by the non-believer. The last six commandments, however, should be taken literally by everyone, even tho you may not covet your neighbors ass, the ass is just an example. You may covet something else your neighbor has.
Breaking those six/ten simple rules is basically the foundation of all evil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brian, posted 06-27-2005 3:22 PM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Rahvin, posted 09-08-2005 1:31 PM DorfMan has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 184 of 306 (241360)
09-08-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Steve8
09-08-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Quite possible?
I'd love to talk about monotheistic China / other cultures. Let's start a thread about it. Put that language link in it, we'll discuss that too

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Steve8, posted 09-08-2005 12:48 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Steve8, posted 09-09-2005 11:33 PM Nuggin has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 185 of 306 (241362)
09-08-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by DorfMan
09-08-2005 1:01 PM


Re: Tenatively Rejected
Even that standard doesn't follow.
The last six Commandments are:
quote:
V. Honour thy father and thy mother.
VI. Thou shalt not kill.
VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VIII. Thou shalt not steal.
IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
X. Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Certainly, lying in a Courtroom environment should be held to believers and unbelievers alike, but if someone tells a lie, it's hardly anyone else's business unless it involves breaking the law - and lying while not under oath should not be made illegal unless it involves risk of property or physical harm, for the same reason.
Adultery is similar. It's just not anybody else's business.
As for coveting - well, that's the thought police right there. Making it illegal to want what somebody else has is reprehensible to force on non-believers. So long as they don't take what they want by force, they can want all they like.
Honoring your parents is nice, but you can hardly make it a law and force it on non-believers. Christians simply don;t have the right to force anyone to honor anyone else.
The commandments against murder and theft are of course good - believers and non-believers alike agree on that one.
Basically, forcing someone to accept any of the Ten COmmandments is immoral, with the exceptions noted. People are entitled to believe, think, and respect whatver they please, and Christians don't have the right to say otherwise, majority or not. Human rights supercede the rule of majority.
Certainly the last six Commandments are an excellent moral guide, as is "love thy neighbor as you love yourself" (and I find it interesting that you left that one out, but included the admonishment against coveting posessions). But they are hardly a foundation for law and forcing non-believers to obey them.
Remember, people have the right to be assholes. Nobody has to be nice, or honest, or monogomous, etc. If you take away the choice, then being good becomes meaningless and forced. Forcing your beliefs on others is reprehensible. The only time it becomes anyone else's business is when the personal property or physical/mental wellbeing of the victim comes into play. Murder obviously should be illegal, but if somebody wants to lie to you, he's just an asshole.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by DorfMan, posted 09-08-2005 1:01 PM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by DorfMan, posted 09-09-2005 12:25 PM Rahvin has replied

DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6080 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 186 of 306 (241804)
09-09-2005 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Rahvin
09-08-2005 1:31 PM


Re: Tenatively Rejected
It all seems very clear to you.
Except for one thing. Society picks up the tab for the ills that plague humanity, and you listed the ills. Theft, lies, adultery, coveting, dishonoring parents, killing. No one, not even God, forces good behavior on anyone. Such things are chosen freely. Choose incorrectly, and penalties happen. How sad a life lives the coveter who squanders paycheck after paycheck, because he/she cannot control buying things. How sad the adulterer, who lives with guilt, or the child that lives with neglecting its parents, and so on.
The right to be assholes comes with penalties. Have a go and see what happens.
As for 'love thy neighbor as thyself'? If you take a careful look at those six ideals, you will see that this maxim includes all of them.
Thank you for your thoughts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Rahvin, posted 09-08-2005 1:31 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2005 1:36 PM DorfMan has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 187 of 306 (241823)
09-09-2005 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by DorfMan
09-09-2005 12:25 PM


Re: Tenatively Rejected
Except for one thing. Society picks up the tab for the ills that plague humanity, and you listed the ills. Theft, lies, adultery, coveting, dishonoring parents, killing. No one, not even God, forces good behavior on anyone. Such things are chosen freely. Choose incorrectly, and penalties happen. How sad a life lives the coveter who squanders paycheck after paycheck, because he/she cannot control buying things. How sad the adulterer, who lives with guilt, or the child that lives with neglecting its parents, and so on.
The right to be assholes comes with penalties. Have a go and see what happens.
As for 'love thy neighbor as thyself'? If you take a careful look at those six ideals, you will see that this maxim includes all of them.
But you missed my entire point.
The advice of those Commandments are an excellent quide to having a better society, and living a better life in general. But forcing the ideas on non-believers is immoral.
I'm well aware that being an asshole has its own penalties, and that being a greedy covetous bastard is a great way to never be satisfied or happy in your life.
But Christians have no right or place to force those things on other people, as you seemed to be suggesting, when you said:
The last six commandments, however, should be taken literally by everyone
It sounds like you want the last six Commandments to be law, and forced on others. That's immoral (except the ones like theft and murder that agree with secular law and protect human rights).
If I misunderstood, and you only believe that the ideas they represent and propose should be taken to heart by everyone as a guide to a better life and society, then I agree and apoligize for misunderstanding.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by DorfMan, posted 09-09-2005 12:25 PM DorfMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by DorfMan, posted 09-12-2005 11:07 AM Rahvin has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 306 (242023)
09-09-2005 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by Nuggin
09-08-2005 1:30 PM


Re: Quite possible?
I wonder if we could discuss this in the 'alternative creations' thread under 'comparative religions'...what do you think?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Nuggin, posted 09-08-2005 1:30 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Nuggin, posted 09-10-2005 12:37 AM Steve8 has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 189 of 306 (242033)
09-10-2005 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Steve8
09-09-2005 11:33 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Works for me, try putting together a thread in proposed topics.
Make sure that you put in some data and your question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Steve8, posted 09-09-2005 11:33 PM Steve8 has not replied

Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 190 of 306 (242211)
09-11-2005 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Steve8
09-07-2005 8:58 PM


Re: Quite possible?
Hi Steve,
If I had a dollar for every unsourced claim evolutionists have made over the years that I have read on this topic, I'd be a rich man.
On which topic? This topic is why read the Bible literally, do you mean unsourced claims about evolution?
It is immaterial whether or not anyone else has sourced their arguments or not, my point was that AiG is a very poor site academically, evolutionists not sourcing claims changes nothing about AiG it is still a very poor site (IMO).
But you guys still believe it...
I already stated that I am not a scientist, I don't follow the evo-creo debate so you are wasting your time mentioning it to me. Just because I am an atheist doesn't mean that I am automatically an evolutionist. I don't know enough about the subject, and frankly, bores me to tears.
so I really don't think that has anything to do with why you take your position.
I take my position because I know that AiG deliberately spreads misinformation about the Old Testament, Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology, the example of not referencing is only one problem with the site.
I've read some Technical Journals in the past, and they were well footnoted.
Again, immaterial, I commented on AiG website.
You may not agree with their views, but they had footnotes aplenty.
Im not a scientist, there is no point in discussing science with me.
You will see that I moderate the Bible based topics, there's a good reason for that!
'Academically poor', no doubt means 'not evolutionist', huh?
I gave one reason why it is academically poor, and I never mentioned evolution.
Do you have any pro-creationist websites that you CAN recommend, just out of curiousity?
Depends what you mean. If it about creation 'science' then I cannot because I dont follow the evo-creo debate. If you mean pro-creation as in a Christian based website then I can recommend quite a few.
If you are an admin. of this site,
There is no 'if' about it, I am an admin.
I would expect you to be able to name at least one!
I can recommend quite a few Christian websites, but my subjects are arts based, not science.
Re. your question re. the Ark, you say 'why the Ark scenario is possible'? Do you mean, why do I believe it, in other words, why do I think it is important...or do you mean HOW it could be possible?
Why do you believe it?
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Steve8, posted 09-07-2005 8:58 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Steve8, posted 09-11-2005 2:04 PM Brian has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 306 (242271)
09-11-2005 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Brian
09-11-2005 4:50 AM


Re: Quite possible?
Thanks for the reply, Brian.
Nice to be able to get to know you a little better. I will try not to raise these particular questions again with you. I'm sure you are a busy guy being an Admin. No offence intended.
With regard to your last question, I guess the bottom line is, Jesus and the apostles (in particular Peter) believed that the Flood had occurred millennia after the fact. I guess I haven't found a better reason to view it as a non-historical event in the millennia since then. Looking at history, it just seems like monotheism (meaning one Creator God, not just any one god) and a young Earth go together like paganism and an old Earth do. Contrary to popular opinion, the idea of an old earth is hardly a new one with evolution. I guess I just feel that history will repeat itself if we don't remember the lessons of the past, that we will be gradually converted to paganism without even being aware of it (like a frog in a kettle of water gradually being heated up) by a 'science' that says nature is all there is. The popularity of the New Age movement in N. America is a sign that we are already feeling the effects of that. Because at the end of the day, people will always end up worshipping someone...or something. I could say more, but I fear that we will go into boring waters for you, so I will stop here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Brian, posted 09-11-2005 4:50 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Nuggin, posted 09-11-2005 2:53 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 194 by purpledawn, posted 09-11-2005 6:27 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 227 by Brian, posted 09-14-2005 8:36 AM Steve8 has replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 192 of 306 (242282)
09-11-2005 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Steve8
09-11-2005 2:04 PM


Re: Quite possible?
I guess I just feel that history will repeat itself if we don't remember the lessons of the past, that we will be gradually converted to paganism without even being aware of it
Couldn't you just as easily say that history will repeat itself by Christianity coopting pagan rituals and beliefs as their own, then systematically exterminating the original practitioners?
After all, Christ died on the cross, was placed in the cave, then after a number of days, the rock was rolled back and out hopped the Easter Bunny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Steve8, posted 09-11-2005 2:04 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Steve8, posted 09-11-2005 7:08 PM Nuggin has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 193 of 306 (242300)
09-11-2005 5:41 PM


Copied from the new flood thread
This is a response to what Faith wrote in Message 11. She requested that I copy it to a more appropriate thread where she could respond. Since it relates to literalism, this seems to be an appropriate place.
..., because for conventional science the word of God is subject to science ...
I'll suggest that this is wrong. Conventional science simply deals with observed and observable reality.
Sure, there are some people who attack the Bible, and some of those are scientists. But science, as an institution, is not involved in these individual actions.
Many scientists consider themselves to be studying God's creation, and learning how to interpret what God himself carved into the rocks, the mountains, the fossil beds. They see nature itself as the word of God, as written by His own hand.
For myself, I see the Bible as the word of man. It was written by man. Only a relatively small portion claims to speak directly of the words and actions of God, but even in those parts it reads as a narrative written by men. But men are fallible, and some of what was attributed to God in the Bible might be mistaken, much as some people today are mistaken in what they attribute to God.
As I recall from my youth in Australia, and as a member of an evangelical congregation there, people at that time were attempting to reconcile the Biblical account with science. Thus there was a day-age theory of the creation. There was the theory that the flood story reported a regional flood (the then known world). I'm not sure where the conflict between religion and science started, but it is my impression that it is a mainly American phenomenon, and that it is certain religious groups who chose to attack science rather than the other way around.

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 194 of 306 (242310)
09-11-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Steve8
09-11-2005 2:04 PM


Re: Quite possible?
quote:
I guess the bottom line is, Jesus and the apostles (in particular Peter) believed that the Flood had occurred millennia after the fact. I guess I haven't found a better reason to view it as a non-historical event in the millennia since then.
How can you tell the difference between whether Jesus believed the flood was an actual happening or whether he was using an old Jewish story to make his point?

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Steve8, posted 09-11-2005 2:04 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Steve8, posted 09-11-2005 6:49 PM purpledawn has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 306 (242315)
09-11-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by purpledawn
09-11-2005 6:27 PM


Re: Quite possible?
If Peter took it to be literally true (he describes the Flood as being God's judgment...are you saying it was just a story??...then what judgment is he talking about if it never happened???...a judgment that never happened is not a judgment lol), and he was a disciple of Jesus, why wouldn't Jesus also? Three years together, and Peter thought it was literal and Jesus didn't??? You really believe Jesus would let Peter labor under that illusion?? Wouldn't he be misleading his disciples to do that? I can just see Jesus now, "That's right, you just go and preach the Flood as God's judgment" while thinking, "oops the Flood never happened...oh well"!!!! Sorry, but that sounds pretty insane!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by purpledawn, posted 09-11-2005 6:27 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by jar, posted 09-11-2005 7:06 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 200 by purpledawn, posted 09-11-2005 7:24 PM Steve8 has replied
 Message 207 by Nighttrain, posted 09-12-2005 7:41 AM Steve8 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024