|
|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Feb 14, 2018 16:20:13 GMT
...act like some rules in the Bible have to be absolutely followed, while others can just be ignored? I mean, other than simple hypocrisy and self-justification (well, the stuff that I want to do isn't so bad, but all that stuff I don't want to do...there oughtta be a law against all THAT stuff).
The Bible says that a man shouldn't lie with another man? Then gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt, and some businesses should even be able to refuse them service.
The Bible says that people who work on the sabbath should be put to death, forbids eating pork, wearing clothes woven of two different types of fabric and premarital sex, and says that any husband and wife who have sex while the wife in on her period should be shunned? Well, I can't afford to take Saturdays off work, I like pork, I don't want to have to check what all my clothes are made off, and I'm horny...so all of those laws are outdated and silly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Feb 14, 2018 16:42:17 GMT
... The Bible says that people who work on the sabbath should be put to death, ... So if I go into a WalMart on a Sunday and shoot anyone wearing a cross, will the courts say it was justified? The Bible also says, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". With such double-talk, you can pick and choose what you want. And I love the story of Noah. Everybody knows the story. However, few realize that, if true, it is the largest example of genocide in world history. Just think: God tells us not to kill, but it's OK for him to kill 99.99% of all humans just because they exercised the free will that God gave them. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 14, 2018 16:50:29 GMT
Some rules in the Bible do have to be followed by Christians.
What may be in error is the notion that the Bible cares if all people follow them.
It primarily concerns itself with people who actually like God.
So the notion of gay sex not being something endorsed in the bible has not ties to them being able to do it legally, and it only becomes an issue when the streams are crossed like in the massive all important gay wedding cake "issue".
but then that just proves what should already be known - the law will always change religious belief or any speech for it's own purposes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 16:55:53 GMT
...act like some rules in the Bible have to be absolutely followed, while others can just be ignored? Because they're hypocrites. Everyone, absolutely everyone, bases their behaviour on what they want to do. No more, no less. Those who proclaim that they follow biblical rules invariably follow the ones that allow them to do what they would do anyway, and ignore the ones that would cause them to do things they don't want to do. Of course they don't want to own up to that, so they come up with various excuses as to why some rules apply and some don't. Nope, there really isn't anything beyond that. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 18:54:01 GMT
Is this a rhetorical question, or are you actually not aware that there's a difference between the old covenant and the new covenant in Christianity?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 14, 2018 19:40:48 GMT
Yeah, that third paragraph is pretty stupid not just on content but there's no originality to it.
I think it's there solely for theophobiacs to say: Yeah why are Christians hypocrites for eating bacon?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 22:01:19 GMT
Is this a rhetorical question, or are you actually not aware that there's a difference between the old covenant and the new covenant in Christianity? This is why I wasn't even going to post in this thread. This topic has been covered almost as much as "Judge not lest ye be judged" on the internet. Apparently the OP has been under a rock for a decade. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 22:12:07 GMT
Is this a rhetorical question, or are you actually not aware that there's a difference between the old covenant and the new covenant in Christianity? This is why I wasn't even going to post in this thread. This topic has been covered almost as much as "Judge not lest ye be judged" on the internet. Apparently the OP has been under a rock for a decade. Thanks to the OP for this fresh and new question! I can't believe the church has never thought about this topic... It'd be even stranger if the Bible ITSELF provides an explanation... Oh, wait... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 22:14:06 GMT
This is why I wasn't even going to post in this thread. This topic has been covered almost as much as "Judge not lest ye be judged" on the internet. Apparently the OP has been under a rock for a decade. Thanks to the OP for this fresh and new question! I can't believe the church has never thought about this topic... It'd be even stranger if the Bible ITSELF provides an explanation... Oh, wait... If there's one thing I've learned on the internet, it's that atheists understand scripture.  |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 14, 2018 22:14:07 GMT
This is the issue with being a literalist or being an inerrant, you have to find someway to avoid things that are distasteful in the bible as you are not allowed to accept that it was written by men 2000+ years ago and that things have changed since then.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Feb 15, 2018 2:42:08 GMT
This is the issue with being a literalist or being an inerrant, you have to find someway to avoid things that are distasteful in the bible as you are not allowed to accept that it was written by men 2000+ years ago and that things have changed since then. Apparently literalism is on the decline so perhaps it'll be less of an obstacle in the future. Unless Ted Cruz wins the White House news.gallup.com/poll/210704/record-few-americans-believe-bible-literal-word-god.aspx |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2018 4:25:27 GMT
This is the issue with being a literalist or being an inerrant, you have to find someway to avoid things that are distasteful in the bible as you are not allowed to accept that it was written by men 2000+ years ago and that things have changed since then. in relation to what the OP is whining about, that ain't it. |
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Feb 15, 2018 6:03:52 GMT
The answer to the contradictions - ignoring one thing, enforcing another - has nothing to do with literalism or the "Old Testament" (i.e. the Hebrew Scriptures) vs. the "New Testament" (i.e. Christian scriptures).
The answer lies in the unholy marriage of the fundamental branch of ancient Christianity with the 20th and 21st century extreme right-wing political agenda.
Fundamental Christians are homophobic bigots because today's extreme right-wing Republican Party are homophobic bigots. All those other things like the kind of clothing you wear or when you work doesn't matter to them. As for not working one day of the week, Christian and political conservatives want companies to be able to order people to work whenever it suits them.
Ancient religion. Modern near-fascist political extremists. Working hand in hand.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Feb 15, 2018 11:57:28 GMT
@graham I would not say absolutely everyone as there are people who genuinely do try to follow that way of living, even on things they don't particularly like and are not easy to them to follow. that's why it's all the more important people have a regular prayer life as that gives us grace from God to follow the way that leads to eternal life. I can even honestly say I am one of those people who does not always do what they want to do even though I mostly do. but I guess one could say it's mainly about avoiding serious sins and trying our best to live a decent life and be charitable as best as you can towards others etc. keep in mind that everyone alive on the planet right now is a sinner... so with this in mind, we are going to have our slip ups on some stuff here and there as no one is perfect. plus, there are some sins that are greater (as in worse) than others. basically in terms of Catholic teachings (which is the Church Jesus Christ started)... there are basically two kinds of sin which is 'venial sin'(mild sin) & 'mortal sin'(serious sin). only a mortal sin can break ones friendship with God as if one dies in a state of mortal sin, they end up in hell. if one has not committed a mortal sin then they cannot end up in hell. but if one does happen to fall into a state of mortal sin (which can be difficult (maybe impossible in some situations I suspect) to determine whether someone is truly in this state as I suspect it's only something God knows) there is always the sacrament of confession as they can be forgiven and restored to a state of grace (i.e. friendship with God). mikef6Nope. if sticking with the truth/what's right on such issues makes us 'homophobic bigots' then so be it. we simply choose to stick to the truth on such matters. it has nothing to do with dissing one for the heck of it etc, but simply choosing not to support a immoral thing is all. that's the difference. official Catholic church teachings (which is the church Jesus Christ Himself started by handing power to Peter(the first pope) and so on) will never change and support homosexuality simply because it's against God and His teachings as it's sinful. so no matter what the world does with whatever is popular at any given time, it will remain rock stable on it's official moral teachings like it always has. another thing... what liberals see as 'extreme right-wing', like say their opposition to homosexuality etc, only appears that way to them because they have become so far away from God's way of moral living pretty much and they might start seeing God as the bad guy for not letting them do whatever it is they want to. It should matter. because for example... females dressing all slutty and the like are just lowering themselves and getting guys to look at them as sex objects instead of decent human begins etc. they should have higher standards and dress more respectable as I would say people in general will treat them better. but with all of that said... I don't expect we will agree on much because you seem to be more of a extreme liberal side (or thereabouts) and you probably see me more on the extreme conservative side. o well, the truth's the truth whether one likes it or not and that applies to myself to as we don't get to do whatever we please either as none of us can cheat God and will have to answer for our sins etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Feb 15, 2018 12:02:46 GMT
...act like some rules in the Bible have to be absolutely followed, while others can just be ignored? I mean, other than simple hypocrisy and self-justification (well, the stuff that I want to do isn't so bad, but all that stuff I don't want to do...there oughtta be a law against all THAT stuff). The Bible says that a man shouldn't lie with another man? Then gays shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt, and some businesses should even be able to refuse them service. The Bible says that people who work on the sabbath should be put to death, forbids eating pork, wearing clothes woven of two different types of fabric and premarital sex, and says that any husband and wife who have sex while the wife in on her period should be shunned? Well, I can't afford to take Saturdays off work, I like pork, I don't want to have to check what all my clothes are made off, and I'm horny...so all of those laws are outdated and silly. I have no idea just where in the Bible the various things you're talking about are located, but one thing that's important to keep in mind is that Christians see the New Testament as overriding the Old Testament. So some stuff that's not followed is because it's in the Old Testament and something in the New Testament supplants it. If it's something that's in the New Testament that's not followed, then yeah, that would just be cherry-picking for believers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 12:59:08 GMT
@graham I would not say absolutely everyone as there are people who genuinely do try to follow that way of living, even on things they don't particularly like and are not easy to them to follow. No, I disagree. Certainly people do genuinely try and follow that way of living, but they do so because they want to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 15, 2018 13:22:00 GMT
...act like some rules in the Bible have to be absolutely followed, while others can just be ignored? I mean, other than simple hypocrisy and self-justification (well, the stuff that I want to do isn't so bad, but all that stuff I don't want to do...there oughtta be a law against all THAT stuff). The religions answer is because some rules CAN be ignored in accordance with what the religion actually teaches. If you’ve ever actually read the bible before (that means the whole thing in context), then you’d understand that some rules were never meant to apply to EVERYONE in the first place, some rules only apply CONDITIONALLY, some rules were CHANGED when God instituted change in the society, other “rules” were never actually rules in the first place, only TRADITIONS, and because many religious people themselves often don’t understand the difference (or cared to learn). People often practice and believe what they were indoctrinated into, rather than seeking knowledge on their own. At the end of the day, it really depends on what you mean by “rules”. That may be what YOU think, and it may be what SOME religious people believe, but that’s kind of a non-sequitur. Even IF the Bible says that, it doesn’t imply that it’s up to man to discriminate against the one guilty of that sin. The only biblically “legal” action that is authorized against people who commit homosexual acts is the KILL THEM. Anything else is going beyond what the scripture actually says. So if you’re not willing to put gays “to death” as it orders, then technically, you’d have no biblical grounds on denying them any other rights. True. But where in the Bible is that instruction given, who is that instruction given to, why was it given to them, under what circumstances do such rules remain valid, and who was it not given to at all? The answers are: the Old Testament; the Jews (Israelites); to distinguish them as God’s chosen people; as long they followed the old covenant; the gentiles! Remember what I said about context. Not exactly. There is no actual commandment that states this to any group in either the old or new testaments. It’s simply a belief that many religious people have based on how they interpret the intent of marriage (as established in scripture). But the Bible doesn’t actually say this anywhere. True. But that goes back to the Old Testament “rules” as well doesn’t it? Fortunately for many religious people, the Bible also validates everything you’ve just said here. Mark 7:18-19“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? 19 For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) Romans 14:2-6One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 15, 2018 13:22:04 GMT
More to the point, the OT is not followed because Jesus replaced/fulfilled it and there was no longer a nation to implement it.
Christianity is not a legal system whereas the Mosaic Law was. The Mosaic law may very well provide reasons for the law,
Christianity is more concerned with the reasons to avoid sin which everyone is free to ignore but not free to force others to ignore which is the more common flip side of the coin.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 15, 2018 14:54:58 GMT
More to the point, the OT is not followed because Jesus replaced/fulfilled it and there was no longer a nation to implement it. Christianity is not a legal system whereas the Mosaic Law was. The Mosaic law may very well provide reasons for the law, Christianity is more concerned with the reasons to avoid sin which everyone is free to ignore but not free to force others to ignore which is the more common flip side of the coin. He didn’t ask you about Christianity! He asked about “religious people” and “conservatives”. This is the narcissism of many American Christians. Not every religious person is Christian, nor do even all Christian interpret scripture the same way. Some DO still believe in the OT and quote from it often in condemning of things like homosexuality. So do everyone a favor an don’t presume to speak on behalf of all religions people. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Feb 15, 2018 17:28:40 GMT
This is the issue with being a literalist or being an inerrant, you have to find someway to avoid things that are distasteful in the bible as you are not allowed to accept that it was written by men 2000+ years ago and that things have changed since then. in relation to what the OP is whining about, that ain't it. Yeah it is. If you are a literalist and inerrant you have to ignore some parts of the bible to reconcile it. |
|
