Moral Code

Momma Angel wrote:

Yes Frank. I have heard you argue that before. And perhaps I used a poor choice of words. Let me put it this way, I do not feel you have an effective argument as you do not appear to understand the balance of the Old and New Testament. You continually (especially with this particular point) still to the letter of the word and seem to take nothing else into view.

If you want to take certain points so literally, why not take some postive things literally? You only seem to point out negatives. When assessing any given situation, person, etc., do you only look at just one side of it? Do you not take the whole picture and circumstances into consideration and then come to a conclusion?

MA...the most crucial part of the Christian religion...as with any ediface...is its base.

The Old Testament...and its god...(the god Jesus worshipped)...is the base of the Christian religion...and it deserves to be looked at carefully.

No matter what Jesus taught...and I am perfectly willing to concede that much of what Jesus taught is edifying to a huge degree...

...unless the relgion can stand the test of the Old Testament...it falls.

Personally, I think the best guess that can be made about Jesus...is that he was a man...a human being...who saw the need to CHANGE the thrust of the religion of the ancient Hebrews...and who did his best to recommend that drastic and substantial change.

Certainly, the people who adopted his philosophy saw a pressing need for immediate and substantial change...and did their best to institute it.

It is my guess that when Jesus claimed he was NOT here to change the law...or that he had no intentions to change the law...

...he was lying.

He was being expedient....much like many politicians of today lie thought their teeth in order to be elected...because without being elected, it does not much matter how far-reaching and necessary your programs and proposals are.

Jesus said what he had to say in order to stay alive...and to continue his work...which, as nearly as I can see...was to change the thrust of the Hebrew religion completely.

I am NOT arguing against the teachings of Jesus. I have, in fact, taken much of his lesson to heart...and integrated it into my personal philosophy.

I am arguing against the blind acceptance of the notion of gods...and the of the divinity of Jesus.

The best way to do that...is to attack the base.

Sorry you do not like that...but that is my agenda...and I do not see it as illogical or duplicitous in any way. I think it is the proper way to proceed...and I wish Christians would adopt it.

As far as I am concerned...this notion of "a balance of the Old Testament and New Testament" is simply the Christian way of distancing itself from the barbarity and savagery of the Old Testament god. You folks are not "balancing" at all...you are avoiding.

0 Replies

Well, I guess my question to you is this? Why do you think they call it Christianity? Christianity = Christlike. So, the basis for Christianity to me is Christ.

I did not mean to imply you were being illogical or duplicitous. I just don't feel you are taking the whole picture into view.

Doesn't matter if I like your agenda or not. You have the right to it and I respect that. And I especially the respect in which you are putting forth your case.

And no, I don't feel we are avoiding anything. We just have differing opinions and views on this particular subject.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

If you want to take certain points so literally, why not take some postive things literally? You only seem to point out negatives. When assessing any given situation, person, etc., do you only look at just one side of it? Do you not take the whole picture and circumstances into consideration and then come to a conclusion?

MA.
Do you have some methodology by which you determine which portions of the Bible you take literally, which you take metaphorically, and which you discard as no longer appropriate?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
If you want to take certain points so literally, why not take some postive things literally? You only seem to point out negatives. When assessing any given situation, person, etc., do you only look at just one side of it? Do you not take the whole picture and circumstances into consideration and then come to a conclusion?

MA.
Do you have some methodology by which you determine which portions of the Bible you take literally, which you take metaphorically, and which you discard as no longer appropriate?

Mesquite, first of all, I discard nothing of the Bible. Methodology? I am not sure exactly what you mean. I have learned over years what I believe. I can't say there is a guide to go by as to what is literal or an interpretation.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Momma Angel wrote:
If you want to take certain points so literally, why not take some postive things literally? You only seem to point out negatives. When assessing any given situation, person, etc., do you only look at just one side of it? Do you not take the whole picture and circumstances into consideration and then come to a conclusion?

MA.
Do you have some methodology by which you determine which portions of the Bible you take literally, which you take metaphorically, and which you discard as no longer appropriate?

Mesquite, first of all, I discard nothing of the Bible.

MA...I really want to understand this part of your response to Mesquite.

Here is a quote from the Bible (one I've used several times in the past):

"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be
put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their
lives." Leviticus 20:13

Are you telling us that there is no part of that passage that you "discard?"

If so...are you putting a fine distinction of the word "discard" that is not easily apparent in your comment?

I can tell you this: From what you have said in previous posts...it certainly is apparent to me that you DO NOT discard the first clause of that passage. However, it does seem from what you have said previously that you most definitely DO "discard" the last two clauses.

I'd really like to understand what you are saying.

0 Replies

Frank,

Discard was Mesquite's word and I repeated it and probably should have used a different one. I don't discard it. I may not interpret it the way you do, or I may understand a particular passage, or I may understand a passage as a historical foundation. But, I do not just totally discard it. I don't say, well, that's crap and out it goes. To me discard,is throwing it away. That, I do not do.

I understand how it may appear to you that I do discard or disregard of whatever word fits here certain things of the Bible. But Frank, I don't. I cannot explain it any better to you or anyone else than I have tried to do numerous times. I understand the meshing of the Old and New Testament in a different way than you do. As long as this is the case, I just don't see where I will ever be able to explain it to your satisfaction.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

Discard was Mesquite's word and I repeated it and probably should have used a different one. I don't discard it. I may not interpret it the way you do, or I may understand a particular passage, or I may understand a passage as a historical foundation. But, I do not just totally discard it. I don't say, well, that's crap and out it goes. To me discard,is throwing it away. That, I do not do.

I understand how it may appear to you that I do discard or disregard of whatever word fits here certain things of the Bible. But Frank, I don't. I cannot explain it any better to you or anyone else than I have tried to do numerous times. I understand the meshing of the Old and New Testament in a different way than you do. As long as this is the case, I just don't see where I will ever be able to explain it to your satisfaction.

I am not getting on your case here, MA...but I am going to respond.

I am going to respectfully suggest, MA, that you do "discard" parts of the Bible...and you do so because you are a decent human being. But, for reasons that we've discussed many times, you simply do not want to acknowledge that is what you are doing.

In the cited passage...there is precious little "interpreting" that needs to be done. The god of the Bible says that a particular human activity...namely, homosexual behavior...is an "abomination"...and the god "commands" (because this is but one of the many commandments of the god) that people discovered engaging in it BE PUT TO DEATH.

Of course you "discard" that last part. In fact, you even discard the essence of the passage insofar as you show compassion and understanding of the plight of people being assailed for their homosexuality.

Think about it! If you came upon a situation where people were haranguing a homosexual for his homosexuality..perhaps beating him...would you not try to stop the proceedings?

I think you would.

You would "discard" that part of the Bible...just as Jesus discarded it.

0 Replies

Frank,

The word discard is not appropriate as far as I am concerned. Jesus discarded nothing of God. There is still punishment for sin. I know you are not getting on my case. You are being very civil and I appreciate that. So, this is a place we will definitely have to agree to disagree.

I am going to the store for some aspirin. Got a headache this morning. BRB

Momma

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

Discard was Mesquite's word and I repeated it and probably should have used a different one. I don't discard it. I may not interpret it the way you do, or I may understand a particular passage, or I may understand a passage as a historical foundation. But, I do not just totally discard it. I don't say, well, that's crap and out it goes. To me discard,is throwing it away. That, I do not do.

Let me jump back in here for just a sec., then I have to get back to work. when I used the term "discard", I used it in the context of being "no longer appropriate".

mesquite wrote:

Do you have some methodology by which you determine which portions of the Bible you take literally, which you take metaphorically, and which you discard as no longer appropriate?

I think this is an extremely important point to understand because there is a large quantity of extremely horrific passages concerning practices in the Bible that most civilized societies have long since abandoned.

Back to MA and Frank.

0 Replies

Mesquite,

Ok, understood.

Yes, these practices have long since been abandoned. However, I believe that is because of the fact that Christ was introduced into the picture. I know we disagree with this but that's how I feel.

0 Replies

MA, Christ entered the picture more than 2000 years ago. Slavery ended in the U.S. less than 150 years ago.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

MA, Christ entered the picture more than 2000 years ago. Slavery ended in the U.S. less than 150 years ago.

Yes, that is true. But, that is just one instance.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Frank,

The word discard is not appropriate as far as I am concerned. Jesus discarded nothing of God. There is still punishment for sin. I know you are not getting on my case. You are being very civil and I appreciate that. So, this is a place we will definitely have to agree to disagree.

I am going to the store for some aspirin. Got a headache this morning. BRB

Momma

Well...since this line of discussion seems to be continuing...I guess I'll stick with it myself...although if you would prefer to drop it, MA, I will understand and leave off.

You wrote:

Quote:

The word discard is not appropriate as far as I am concerned.

Use "disregard" "dispense with" "repudiate"...whatever.

In the passage we are using...you certainly are continuing to consider appropriate and fully applicable the injunction that homosexual conduct is a sin...an abomination, if you will. But you have discarded...(rejected, discarded, dispensed with, disregard for, repudiation of) the part about killing the individuals involved.

So some word has to be found to descibe what it is that has happened to the part of the passage that you no longer find applicable.

Help us with this. Both Mesquite and I are trying to understand the Christian position on this...(I now consider it unfathomable)...and understanding your take on it might help.

Quote:

Jesus discarded nothing of God.

Well, Jesus certainly said he was not here to "discard" anything of the god of the Bible...

...but MA...you and I and the world all know that OF COURSE HE DID.

Why do you suppose you...and all the other Christians arguing in this forum...get so bothered when we non-Christians bring up all the garbage contained in the Old Testament? And why do you suppose you all want to consider that stuff no longer applicable for the very reason you just gave to Mesquite?

You wrote: "Yes, these practices have long since been abandoned. However, I believe that is because of the fact that Christ was introduced into the picture. "

If Jesus did not change all that...cause it to be disregarded...why do you...and your fellow Christians...use that wording?

Quote:

I am going to the store for some aspirin. Got a headache this morning.

Sorry about the headache. Hope you feel better soon.

0 Replies

Frank,

Do you mean the fact that I consider the act of homosexuality a sin and yet I don't believe you should kill them like the Old Testament says.

I will do my best to explain it. Before Christ there were the laws and there was the punishment. There was nothing between that. Now, the sin has not changed but Christ has paid the price for the sin so it is no longer necessary to have the punishment of killing those that practice homosexuality.

I don't know how to explain it better than that.

And thank you, my headache is a bit better. I think it's mostly because of the weather. It is doing some strange things right now and the barometric pressure is up and down and sideways. We are trying to prepare for Hurricane Rita because she is headed for our front door this time.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

mesquite wrote:
MA, Christ entered the picture more than 2000 years ago. Slavery ended in the U.S. less than 150 years ago.

Yes, that is true. But, that is just one instance.

A very significant one IMO.

When you have text books that are frozen in time, adaptability becomes difficult to achieve. Parts will be disregarded by some but not all. Right now there is a resurgence of fundamentalism and they are gaining political power. They are dangerous.

Mark Twain wrote:

During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry. Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch -- the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything. At Salem, the parson clung pathetically to his witch text after the laity had abandoned it in remorse and tears for the crimes and cruelties it has persuaded them to do. The parson wanted more blood, more shame, more brutalities; it was the unconsecrated laity that stayed his hand. In Scotland the parson killed the witch after the magistrate had pronounced her innocent; and when the merciful legislature proposed to sweep the hideous laws against witches from the statute book, it was the parson who came imploring, with tears and imprecations, that they be suffered to stand.

There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain.

It is not well worthy of note that of all the multitude of texts through which man has driven his annihilating pen he has never once made the mistake of obliterating a good and useful one? It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency.

Bible Teaching and Religious Practice.

0 Replies

They are dangerous? Because why? Because they do not agree with you and others? Couldn't it also be said then that there are those that feel non-believers are also dangerous?

Which all means what, Mesquite? It's life. You have your beliefs and I have mine. We each have those rights. So, you practice your rights and I practice mine. Now, if we both got 100% of what we wanted then that would mean (as you have pointed out) that if I practice my beliefs I infringe on yours.

0 Replies

They are dangerous to our secular form of government when they have an agenda that would replace secular government with theocracy.

Since it should be abundantly obvious that there is no common agreement as to biblical interpretation, the only way to guarantee the religious freedom that we enjoy today is to maintain the separation of church and state.

Perhaps you would like to explain why you think non-believers may be dangerous.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

They are dangerous to our secular form of government when they have an agenda that would replace secular government with theocracy.

Since it should be abundantly obvious that there is no common agreement as to biblical interpretation, the only way to guarantee the religious freedom that we enjoy today is to maintain the separation of church and state.

Perhaps you would like to explain why you think non-believers may be dangerous.

Mesquite,

If "they have an agenda" that is not for the common good, I would agree with you.

I am not saying per se that non-believers are dangerous. I am just saying that when it appears that God is trying to be erased from something, it can be viewed as dangerous, as I believe without God there just is no hope. Now, I understand that is my belief but I am not saying anyone "is" dangerous. I was just saying that I suppose both sides could claim the other as dangerous.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Mesquite,

If "they have an agenda" that is not for the common good, I would agree with you.

They do have an agenda.
http://www.4religious-right.info/

Momma Angel wrote:

I am not saying per se that non-believers are dangerous. I am just saying that when it appears that God is trying to be erased from something, it can be viewed as dangerous, as I believe without God there just is no hope. Now, I understand that is my belief but I am not saying anyone "is" dangerous. I was just saying that I suppose both sides could claim the other as dangerous.

I said dangerous to our secular form government and to the freedom to practice or not practice religion as we see fit. Just because you happen to agree with what you know of the religious philosophy of those currently flexing their muscles should not be reason to feel comfortable with their goals.

The fact that you parrot their lines about erasing God shows that they are effective in their techniques. Removing from a court of law an imposing monument which sported text that demanded no other gods before it should not be considered erasing God.

I had hoped that your recent skirmish with Rex over a minor point of interpretation would have highlighted the value of religious freedom.

0 Replies

I am going to try this again. I tried posting a reply and couldn't connect to the server. The weather is getting weird.

I tried to get to that link but couldn't right now. I will try it again.

Please understand it's hard for me to grasp that something that has been in my life for such a long time, i.e., the Ten Commandments in Courthouses, God in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc., is now a bone of contention with so many.

I believe that, if at the very least, everyone lived by the Beatitudes then this world would be such a better place. But unfortunately, that's not the way of the world.

I might be losing you here so I'd better get off. Rita is starting to make her presence known.

I will get back with you when I can.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know