True: Christian's have their own Moral Relativism

[liblady]

Is the concept of "permanent inheritance" foreign to you? I suppose "forever and ever" could be considered a term, if you want to twist it that way.

What about the concept of "purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you?" I mean I suppose that is a contractual agreement... between the original owners of the property, and the new owners of the property.

Biblically, slavery was slavery except for male Israelites.

i don't think dig wants to play.

 

[Black Dog]

Well, duh. I never said otherwise. However, YOU DO USE LEVITICAL LAW AS A BASIS FOR YOUR POSITION ON THIS ISSUE. Please stop playing pretend.

No I don't. I use it to show as a reference to what is in the thoughts of God, not the present law. Now considering the fac that it is mentioned in the New Testament makes it relevant to the religious debate either way.

You can take it however you like, and it will not change the truth of my statement.

 

[Black Dog]

i don't think dig wants to play.

Because it is an asinine argument to compare our thinking to an omnipotent being who thoughts and morality may be completely irrational to our physical and limited way of thinking.

 

[ksu_aviator]

In other words, you are saying because Slavery as a was a the "norm" when the Old Testament was written, that God had no way of making a moral judgment about how wrong it was? You see, the fact that you are defending slavery, proves my point. I am willing to believe and accept that God Himself is a moral guide, but the Bible, clearly, is not, due to the fact that it treats slavery like a "moral" form of employment, as you say. Slavery is wrong no matter what time-period it is.

You clearly don't get it. As to everything else you said, that's your opinion. The Bible contradicts itself, when it comes morality. No way around it.

Is it beyond you to grasp the concept of a changing society? Slavery, in biblical times, was not the same as slavery in modern times. Unless you can grasp that concept, you clearly can't continue this debate.

It's sad when Christian's don't even know the definition of adultery, then post on websites to embarrass themselves.

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Adultery

Read Dueterotomy or any book of the Bible. Genesis for example. Adam and Eve didn't get married before they fornicated.

Here we go with the then and now definitions. Adultery now requires one to be married. Adultery then was sexual, spiritual, lustful (no contact) and numerous other violations with someone that was not your spouse (that means you could be single OR married).

Biblical View of Adultery

As for Adam and Eve, they did get married:

]Genesis 2 - Passage Lookup - BibleGateway.com[/url]
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
23 And Adam said:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

God married Adam and Eve...that is why marriage is a holy institution...one of the most holy as it is the first ceremony that God performed.

 

[Panache]

No I don't. I use it to show as a reference to what is in the thoughts of God, not the present law. Now considering the fac that it is mentioned in the New Testament makes it relevant to the religious debate either way.

You can take it however you like, and it will not change the truth of my statement.

How is saying "Levetical law says that incest is sin, therefore God thinks it is a sin, therefore people who engage in it and don't repent are going to hell" not using Levitical law as the basis of your position?

I can use the Bible like that too, watch:

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." - Leviticus 19:19

Now I am not saying that this is the present law, per se, because the old covenant has been replaced by the new covenant. But we can use this as a reference to what God's thoughts are on the matter, and obviously God thinks that wearing mixed fabrics is abhorrent. Because of this, Real Christians(tm) will never choose to wear cotton/polyester blend, because they love God, and if they do wear cotton/polyester blend and don't repent of their evil ways, they are going to hell.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

No I don't. I use it to show as a reference to what is in the thoughts of God, not the present law. .

God hates gayness, ergo, it's okay for me to do the same. :roll:

 

[Panache]

Is it beyond you to grasp the concept of a changing society? Slavery, in biblical times, was not the same as slavery in modern times. Unless you can grasp that concept, you clearly can't continue this debate.

Slavery, in Biblical times, was indeed the same as slavery in modern times. Your continued denial of this fact doesn't make it any less true. The evidence has been presented, and no one has in any way challenged it. Slavery in Biblical times, meant buying someone as property,, even children, keeping them as a piece of property permanently, bequeathing them to your heirs, beating them as hard as you want when you are so inclined, and selling them when they don't satisfy you. How is the modern concept of slavery any different?

Here we go with the then and now definitions. Adultery now requires one to be married. Adultery then was sexual, spiritual, lustful (no contact) and numerous other violations with someone that was not your spouse (that means you could be single OR married).

Biblical View of Adultery

OMG. Did you even read the article you linked to? Let's look at the concluding paragraph shall we?

To allow ourselves to be side-tracked from the broad semantic range of this biblical concept, and to assume, as some have done, that "adultery" is strictly and only a sexual act, is to completely fail to perceive the true significance of God's teaching in the Scriptures. The idea consistent throughout is that "adultery" is unfaithfulness to a covenant relationship; an unfaithfulness that may manifest itself in any number of ways, but which inevitably leads, if not corrected, to the breakdown of that relationship. May God help us to stay focused on our covenant relationships, both vertically and horizontally. The cost for doing otherwise is much too high!

Al Maxey, who you apparently consider to be a reliable source, hit the nail on the head here. Adultery is about betraying someone with whom you have established a covenant relationship.

Single people, who haven't established any such covenant relationship, cannot commit adultery by betraying a spouse that they don't have. Your link doesn't even come close to supporting your stated position that sex with anyone you aren't married to is adultery. Far from it. It implies that if you haven't participated in breaking an established covenant, you haven't committed adultery.

My girlfriend and I haven't been unfaithful to to the covenant we established with each other, and we haven't established a covenant with anyone else, so we aren't committing adultery (a.k.a breach of covenant) by having sex with each other.

 

[joe six-pack]

Is it beyond you to grasp the concept of a changing society? Slavery, in biblical times, was not the same as slavery in modern times. Unless you can grasp that concept, you clearly can't continue this debate.

If the Bible is the Word of God, then "society" should not matter.

That's what you obviously can't seem to understand. The Bible endorses slavery, which you admit. Slavery is morally wrong, which you also admit. That's my entire point. You verify that with every post you make, by the way. I already won that debate.

Thanks for trying.

Here we go with the then and now definitions. Adultery now requires one to be married. Adultery then was sexual, spiritual, lustful (no contact) and numerous other violations with someone that was not your spouse.

I'll spell this out for you again. Adultery is a violation of marriage vows.

That's the traditional definition of adultery in the Bible and Torah.

As for Adam and Eve, they did get married

In case you didn't realize it, Eve never said "I do." What Genesis says about Adam and Eva wasn't a marriage, so much as a sanctioned union. But you can have that one, if you want it.

People did have sex before marriage and sometimes as a punishment for fornication they were forced to marry. That's what Deuteronomy says, including the part that you clearly don't think was about rape. Deuteronomy doesn't punish sex before marriage, it insists the couple be regarded as "married," even if the girl had sex unwillingly.

Deuteronomy 22

28 If a man sees a young virgin, who has not given her word to be married to anyone, and he takes her by force and has connection with her, and discovery is made of it;

29 Then the man will have to give the virgin's father fifty shekels of silver and make her his wife, because he has put shame on her; he may never put her away all his life.

God married Adam and Eve...that is why marriage is a holy institution...one of the most holy as it is the first ceremony that God performed.

If it were an actual marriage, Eva would have had a choice and said "Yes." It was a metaphor for a natural and sacred union between a man and woman. God wasn't physically there, because anyone who actually sees God in person would die instantly.

(Exodus 33:20)

“But He said, ‘You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!’"

Is the concept of "permanent inheritance" foreign to you? I suppose "forever and ever" could be considered a term, if you want to twist it that way.

What about the concept of "purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you?" I mean I suppose that is a contractual agreement... between the original owners of the property, and the new owners of the property.

Biblically, slavery was slavery except for male Israelites.

Thank you.

It's comforting that at least someone understands the content of the Bible.

 

[DarkWizard12]

God hates gayness, ergo, it's okay for me to do the same. :roll:

agreed, but you would only be conceding to blackdog.

 

[Black Dog]

God hates gayness, ergo, it's okay for me to do the same. :roll:

Could you be just a little more condescending or make a bigger strawman?

God does not like sexual immorality in all it's forms and so it is not OK to support it.

 

[Sov]

Good post, OP. Let's also keep in mind that for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim fundamentalists, nothing is inherently right or wrong - that requires God's say-so. Genocide, child rape, torture of kittens - if God commands anything, it's okay. The other day a fundie told me that Jeffrey Dahmer could easily be in heaven due to a last-minute conversion to the One True Faith while Mother Theresa is probably in Hell since she was part of the catlick Whore of Babylon (this guy is a Prot, big time, as you might've guessed). These friggin' psychos are lucky we've let them hide under "freedom of religion" all this time while spreading their mind-rotting pornography to kids. Someday that's going to have to change. Makes no sense that NAMBLA is so stigmatized yet the contraception-banning (making abortion and infanticide MORE prevalent, durrrrrrrrr, real smart), fascist-linked, misogynist, child rapist enabling and creepy as hell Catholic Church is still widely seen as noble. It's like NAMBLA yet many thousands times bigger and has ruined the lives of many thousand times more kids. Look I don't hate good people who happen to be born into Catholicism, or even if they converted because they were only looking at the noble things - like the good aspects of Jesus' message, the beautiful cathedrals, the likes of Mother Theresa, etc., etc. But I have to speak the truth. 'Resist not evil' can bugger off. And you know what? All those good things about Catholicism - or any religion - come from the pressing on of the human spirit until it powerfully prevails, in spite of authoritarian religion, not because of it.

 

[Ahlevah]

The Bible doesn't say that slavery or rape are wrong. In fact, the Bible encourages both. Yet that same Bible is used as a moral compass by people who believe rape is immoral. To a Christian, morality is relative to what scripture says God thinks.

For starters, you need to be careful when you try to lump all Christians into the same pot. And I don't think one has to be a Christian to use the Bible as a moral compass. Lincoln often quoted from the Old Testament, and yet I don't think one can come to any conclusion other than than he thought slavery was a moral affront to God:

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

Abraham Lincoln: Second Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

 

[Sov]

Lincoln often quoted from the Old Testament, and yet I don't think one can come to any conclusion other than than he thought slavery was a moral affront to God

Not being a Christian (or Jew or Muslim), and certainly no fundamentalist, he was free to interpret the text in any way he wanted. Fundies who buy into Biblical literalism or the like are very different animals.

I enjoy reading the Bible from an interpretive gnostic and Jungian perspective. The Eden story is true in a sense, but since I'm not a fundie I don't have to accept that the serpent is evil - my conscience (hey! remember? knowledge of good and evil... where do you think we get that?) tells me he's the good guy. I'm no literalist so I'm free to interpret Genesis allegorically, as pointing to perhaps archetypical, moral, etc., truths but that doesn't mean I have to believe there's an abandoned garden hidden somewhere with a "flaming sword flashing back and forth" right outside. (Neat as that would be - and think of how much that thing would fetch on eBay)

 

[Mach]

Denying relativism is relative. Agreed.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Could you be just a little more condescending

I'm pretty sure I could, but I suspect it would really piss you off.

God does not like sexual immorality in all it's forms and so it is not OK to support it.

This is different from what I said, how? I did not say God hates GAYS. I said that he hates their GAYNESS. Feel free to explain the difference between my statement and yours.