True: Christian's have their own Moral Relativism

[joe six-pack]

Of course christians have their own moral relativism! I could have told you that! Look around you, there are at least...what...50 different sec6s of christianity? many of which are in direct contradiction with each other?

Excellent point.

If the old testament condones rape, why don't we hear of mass rape within the Hasidic jewish community, the people that still believe devoutly in the old laws

The Bible only condones "rape" in certain situations.

If you own a female slave, you can force her to have sex with the intention of making her your wife. If you rape a woman who is not betrothed to be married, you have to marry her--or your put to death. That's what Deuteronomy 22 says, at least.

Other books of the Bible are just as morally ambiguous, Numbers, Leviticus, ect..

Thanks. eace

 

[joe six-pack]

What people are describing here isn't so much a case of moral relativism so much as it is simply picking and choosing what to believe.

It's both.

Yes, clearly, not all Christians follow any of the Old Testament rules. But they do use the Bible itself as a moral guide-book. When it comes to homosexuals, Christians are more than happy to bring up the "Old Testament" as the ultimate Word of God. So, why is it that when we look at the entire OT, Christian's get upset and claim it's promotion of slave-rape doesn't apply to modern day?

Well, then, maybe the rules against homosexuality don't apply in modern day either? Oops.

eace

 

[digsbe]

The Bible doesn't condone rape. In fact the very passage you said condones it condemns it

Deu 22:25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.
Deu 22:26 Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor,
Deu 22:27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.
Deu 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,
Deu 22:29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [fn] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

 

[Black Dog]

It's both.

Yes, clearly, not all Christians follow any of the Old Testament rules. But they do use the Bible itself as a moral guide-book. When it comes to homosexuals, Christians are more than happy to bring up the "Old Testament" as the ultimate Word of God. So, why is it that when we look at the entire OT, Christian's get upset and claim it's promotion of slave-rape doesn't apply to modern day?

Well, then, maybe the rules against homosexuality don't apply in modern day either? Oops.

eace

Only if you also throw our Romans, 1 Corinthians etc.

Homosexuality is indeed a sin in the New Testament as well.

Oops.

 

[joe six-pack]

Christians have theological interpretations of the moral code set forth in the Bible. I believe in moral absolutes.

Except you use the Bible as a moral compass; and even Christian interpretations morally relative.

This has nothing to do with "interpretation," but the Old Testament God says that slavery is exceptionable and that raping your slaves and making them your wife is also acceptable. But Christians attempt to jump through moral hoops in order to come to terms with the fact that the guide they use as a moral compass is morally ambiguous.

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

Not only does the Bible condone slavery, but encourages slaves to submit?

 

[joe six-pack]

You are saying that because incest is forbidden in Mosaic law, that God finds it abhorrent and sinful for Christians to engage in. That is exactly the same as saying that it applies to Christians.

Paradoxically, some Christian's believe God's words don't apply to them, as Christians.

Even though they believe in God and that God's word is absolute Law, they still contradict that belief by invalidating what they believe to be God's personal thoughts. This is the entire crux of my argument, which is less an argument and more an exploration, which is that Christians have some conflicting moral logic in their own doctrine and cannon of belief. Clearing that up would improve society as a whole, since religion has become such a big part of Politics these days.

 

[joe six-pack]

Only if you also throw our Romans, 1 Corinthians etc.

Homosexuality is indeed a sin in the New Testament as well.

Christ never once condemns homosexuality. That's the point.

If you rely on the Old Testament for morality concerning homosexuals, which 1 Corinthians is referencing, rather than Christ's teachings, then you also have to take the Old Testaments morals concerning slavery, taking prisoners as slaves and raping woman slaves to make them war-wives.

Do you think slavery is morally acceptable too?

 

[joe six-pack]

The Bible doesn't condone rape. In fact the very passage you said condones it condemns it

Not if you actually read what it says.

It does condemn rape if that rape commits adultery. But if the rape doesn't commit adultery, the rapist is rewarded by being made the "husband" of the rape victim. Please actually read what it says, word for word, before you respond. Word for word. I already commented on this once, so either you didn't read it or you do not understand English well. Deu 22:28

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22 NIV

So, this is the moral relativism I'm talking about. In the Bible rape is wrong if it commits adultery, but if it doesn't the rape victim will be forced to marry the rapist. Yes, that is technically a "punishment" but it punishes the victim, not the rapist. Since the rapist gets to marry the girl he just raped, he can rape her legally every night.

More cases where women are forced to marry or taken as sex slaves are in the Bible. The fact that slavery itself is promoted and celebrated in the Bible should prove my point on it's own. But you will never admit I have a point, you'll ignore my entire post and it's content.

 

[digsbe]

Except you use the Bible as a moral compass; and even Christian interpretations morally relative.

This has nothing to do with "interpretation," but the Old Testament God says that slavery is exceptionable and that raping your slaves and making them your wife is also acceptable. But Christians attempt to jump through moral hoops in order to come to terms with the fact that the guide they use as a moral compass is morally ambiguous.

1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel."

Not only does the Bible condone slavery, but encourages slaves to submit?

No it doesn't. You are ignoring the passages before it and following it. Here is that passage in it's propper context.

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority,
1Pe 2:14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.
1Pe 2:15 For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.
1Pe 2:16 Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.
1Pe 2:17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
1Pe 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1Pe 2:19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.
1Pe 2:20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
1Pe 2:21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
1Pe 2:22 "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." [fn]
1Pe 2:23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.
1Pe 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
1Pe 2:25 For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

If you read the passage it called the suffering of slavery to be "unjust." However it also says that standing up with character and suffering oppression and countering it with love and respect is "commendable."The message? Show love and respect to everyone just as Jesus did. Show love and respect regardless of how others treat you. This is a similar message that MLK and Gandhi preached. You can't pick and select Bible verses out of context and make a logical judgement inasmuch as I can't do the same toward anyone else.

 

[joe six-pack]

I get what your point is, but...

If you read the passage it called the suffering of slavery to be "unjust."

No where in that passage does it call slavery itself "unjust." Slavery is morally wrong in and of itself. The Bible doesn't seem to know that.

Therefore, either God doesn't know slavery is morally wrong, or the Bible is wrong about slavery being acceptable in God's mind. Which is it?

 

[digsbe]

I get what your point is, but...

No where in that passage does it call slavery itself "unjust." Slavery is morally wrong in and of itself. The Bible doesn't seem to know that.

Therefore, either God doesn't know slavery is morally wrong, or the Bible is wrong about slavery being acceptable in God's mind. Which is it?

It calls it unjust suffering.

1Pe 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1Pe 2:19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.

The Bible also directly calls slave trading wrong

1Ti 1:9 We also know that law [fn] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers,
1Ti 1:10 for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

Slavery in that time was not what we think of today. One could sell themselves into slavery for 7 years and be paid for it. Many who had debts would sell themselves into slavery to pay them off. After 7 years you were to be set free. However, if a slave loved his master and family he could serve them for life as a bond servant. The Bible uses the principal of bond servant-hood to depict how we are to willingly serve Christ out of love and not out of obligation. James even introduces his letter by proclaiming himself to be a bond servant to Jesus Christ.

James 1:1 James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad: Greetings.

 

[joe six-pack]

It calls it unjust suffering.

Let's try this again. This time with better reading comprehension.

The passage does not call slavery unjust, the passage does not call slaver itself "unjust suffering" either. It implies that slavery can involve suffering, but doesn't call "slavery unjust." Do you understand the difference? Here read it again, slower this time.

1Pe 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Paul makes a distinction between "cruel" slave owners and "good" ones.

1Pe 2:19 For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.

Not all slaves suffer physically, as in the case of Paul's "good" slave owners.

Paul says some slave owners are good (and considerate) in 2:18. Read it again and stop wasting time.

The Bible also directly calls slave trading wrong

And that contradicts passage we have discussed which says it's okay to capture slaves yourself after battle, including innocent woman to be wed. This only proves my point that the Bible is a moral contradiction itself. So it's wrong to trade slaves, but it's ok to capture them? Wonderful.

Slavery in that time was not what we think of today.

So you are saying some slavery is morally acceptable?

That proves my point. Thanks for wasting both of our time. eace

 

[Black Dog]

Christ never once condemns homosexuality. That's the point.

If you rely on the Old Testament for morality concerning homosexuals, which 1 Corinthians is referencing, rather than Christ's teachings, then you also have to take the Old Testaments morals concerning slavery, taking prisoners as slaves and raping woman slaves to make them war-wives.

Do you think slavery is morally acceptable too?

Please read the Bible and stop making claims that are uneducated on it.

The Apostle Paul is very clear about what is and what is not Gods law. Homosexuality is indeed a sin according to Paul. This includes adultery, fornication and all manner of immorality.

 

[joe six-pack]

Please read the Bible and stop making claims that are uneducated on it.

Nothing I have said about the Bible is untrue. You clearly don't have any argument.

The Apostle Paul is very clear about what is and what is not Gods law. Homosexuality is indeed a sin according to Paul. This includes adultery, fornication and all manner of immorality.

Do you know the difference between Jesus Christ and Paul? I do.

This is what Jesus thought of his Apostles...

Mathew 16:23 "Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You block me, you do not have the things of God in mind."

I said Christ himself never once--never once--said homosexuality was morally wrong. Therefore, Christs teachings do not deal with the morality of homosexuality. Any New Testament reference to homosexuality is a reference to Old Testament beliefs about homosexuality.

The Bible is morally ambiguous, but when it comes to homosexuality Christ is silent.

Thanks eace

 

[Panache]

Please read the Bible and stop making claims that are uneducated on it.

That is amusing coming from the same person who said this:

Menstruation is not a sin even under the law of Leviticus. Having sex with a woman who is menstruating is considered unclean. This is not considered a sin.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/84851-question-people-believe-being-gay-wrong-37.html
Post #367

The Apostle Paul is very clear about what is and what is not Gods law. Homosexuality is indeed a sin according to Paul. This includes adultery, fornication and all manner of immorality.

Is Paul the Christ? This is what what Joe said:

Christ never once condemns homosexuality.

How can you equate Paul calling it sin to Christ condemning it unless Paul is Christ?

 

[Black Dog]

Nothing I have said about the Bible is untrue. You clearly don't have any argument.

Do you know the difference between Jesus Christ and Paul? I do.

Yes, yes I do...

Mark 7:20-22And Jesus said, "What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride,
foolishness."

This is what Jesus thought of his Apostles...

Mathew 16:23 "Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You block me, you do not have the things of God in mind."

That is intresting. Why did you leave out the comntext?

24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Huge difference to what you tried to imply.

I said Christ himself never once--never once--said homosexuality was morally wrong. Therefore, Christs teachings do not deal with the morality of homosexuality. Any New Testament reference to homosexuality is a reference to Old Testament beliefs about homosexuality.

I never said you were talking about Paul? I was talking about the New Testament. Not just the Gospels or just Jesus.

The Bible is morally ambiguous, but when it comes to homosexuality Christ is silent.

Thanks eace

You would like it to be to condone immorality, which is OK. In the end it is between you and God.

Thanks eace

 

[Black Dog]

That is amusing coming from the same person who said this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religion-and-philosophy/84851-question-people-believe-being-gay-wrong-37.html
Post #367

Is Paul the Christ? This is what what Joe said:

How can you equate Paul calling it sin to Christ condemning it unless Paul is Christ?

You have got to be kidding? Are you going to use that same mistake I said I made to denounce everything when you have no argument? :lol:

The truth is we hove no idea if Paul was referring to OT law, None. It was his opinion and that is what I was talking about.

 

[Panache]

You have got to be kidding? Are you going to use that same mistake I said I made to denounce everything when you have no argument? :lol:

No, but I will use it when you chastise people for making uneducated claims about a book that you yourself make uneducated claims about.

The truth is we hove no idea if Paul was referring to OT law, None. It was his opinion and that is what I was talking about.

We also have no idea that the word arsenokoitai even means "homosexual" at all. We know that Jesus never talked about homosexuality in any of the four Gospels though, which rather seemed like Joe's point.

 

[joe six-pack]

I never said you were talking about Paul? I was talking about the New Testament. Not just the Gospels or just Jesus.

No. But I said Christ had nothing to say regarding the morality of homosexuality; to which, you called be Biblical ignorant.

I have since made you look like a fool, since your responses only verify my point about the Bibles "morality."

You would like it to be to condone immorality, which is OK. In the end it is between you and God.

Actually I want to have intelligent conversations about morality.

The Bible is morally ambiguous. The cannon of work itself, as well as reposes to this thread verify that as fact. I have no intention of "condoning immorality" but the Bible does, when it comes to slavery and, in some cases, rape.

You still don't seem to understand that.

 

[Black Dog]

No, but I will use it when you chastise people for making uneducated claims about a book that you yourself make uneducated claims about.

Huge difference between uneducated and had not read in awhile.

We also have no idea that the word arsenokoitai even means "homosexual" at all. We know that Jesus never talked about homosexuality in any of the four Gospels though, which rather seemed like Joe's point.

Yes, that is true.

 

[Black Dog]

No. But I said Christ had nothing to say regarding the morality of homosexuality; to which, you called be Biblical ignorant.

I have since made you look like a fool, since your responses only verify my point about the Bibles "morality."

Actually I want to have intelligent conversations about morality.

Your responses are for the most part biblically speaking absurd and out of context. Then you discount or just throw our entire books of the Bible. Sorry, just does not cut it.

As for the fool thing, not really. However if you think this makes you a winner at Internets, cool. :lol:

Then stop bashing and ask questions. Actually post biblical paragraphs in context. I would be more than happy to go that route.

The Bible is morally ambiguous. The cannon of work itself, as well as reposes to this thread verify that as fact. I have no intention of "condoning immorality" but the Bible does, when it comes to slavery and, in some cases, rape.

You still don't seem to understand that.

It is not, you do not understand the new and old covenants.

 

[joe six-pack]

Your responses are for the most part biblically speaking absurd and out of context.

I have, step-by-step, explained my point with literal, in context quotes with explanations.

The problem is that you can't seem to grasp what my point is. The Bible is morally hypocritical, it contradicts itself. Furthermore, some of the content, in context, contradicts what many Christian's value morally.

Then you discount or just throw our entire books of the Bible.

The fact that various books of the Bible contradict each other is my entire point.

So, no. I haven't discounted any book of the Bible.

Sorry, just does not cut it.

You can't see the forest from the trees.

As for the fool thing, not really. However if you think this makes you a winner at Internets, cool.

I just enjoy pointing out where you are wrong. I have--if you want to ignore it, because you think it makes you a winner, that's cool.

Then stop bashing and ask questions. Actually post biblical paragraphs in context. I would be more than happy to go that route.

I did. I posted the entire section of Deuteronomy in context to prove my point.

We have moved on--you haven't. Page 3

It is not, you do not understand the new and old covenants.

I understand your archaic interpretation of the Bible. You think the New Testament completely invalidates the Old Testament. But, in Christs own words, it doesn't. He said, in his own words, that if you love him follow the 10 Commandments, the Law and remember scripture (Old Testament).

The fact that you keep arguing with me proves you don't understand the debate. I already proved my case. The Bible is morally ambiguous when it comes to slavery, but it usually condones taking slaves. That's a fact. We've moved on. The Page 3 link I posted reiterates the entire, in context, quote I made of Deuteronomy.

You have yet to make an intelligent argument about Biblical morality, but feel free to try. Let me get you started--I'll ask questions as you suggest!

1. Do you condone slavery in general, as the Bible clearly does? Is slavery an acceptable life-style for you or your children?
2. If you kidnap a woman from war, do you believe it's morally right to force her into marriage?

Thanks eace

 

[Black Dog]

I understand your archaic interpretation of the Bible. You think the New Testament completely invalidates the Old Testament. But, in Christs own words, it doesn't. He said, in his own words, that if you love him follow the 10 Commandments, the Law and remember scripture (Old Testament).

The fact that you keep arguing with me proves you don't understand the debate. I already proved my case. The Bible is morally ambiguous when it comes to slavery, but it usually condones taking slaves. That's a fact. We've moved on. The Page 3 link I posted reiterates the entire, in context, quote I made of Deuteronomy.

You have yet to make an intelligent argument about Biblical morality, but feel free to try. Let me get you started--I'll ask questions as you suggest!

1. Do you condone slavery in general, as the Bible clearly does? Is slavery an acceptable life-style for you or your children?
2. If you kidnap a woman from war, do you believe it's morally right to force her into marriage?

Thanks eace

This is a perfect example of what I said. You are not debating, and your statements show a complete and utter failure to grasp even the simple concept of fulfillment.

I can see why KSU gave up. It is pointless to try and teach someone something who already knows everything.

 

[joe six-pack]

This is a perfect example of what I said. You are not debating, and your statements show a complete and utter failure to grasp even the simple concept of fulfillment.

I can see why KSU gave up. It is pointless to try and teach someone something who already knows everything.

You are unable to have an intelligent debate because you are unable to admit when a provable fact is shown to you.

Case closed. If you ever want to pull your head out of the sand, I'll be here. I never claimed to know everything, just more than you, obviously.

 

[Black Dog]

You are unable to have an intelligent debate because you are unable to admit when a provable fact is shown to you.

Oh you mean like this...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-a...-between-man-and-woman-42.html#post1059119514

http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...sier-if-werent-religion-2.html#post1059119498

http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-a...-between-man-and-woman-40.html#post1059118675

And hundreds more.

So no. That is not true in any way.

Case closed. If you ever want to pull your head out of the sand, I'll be here. I never claimed to know everything, just more than you, obviously.

If you say so. :lol: