At 5/29/10 02:53 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:
At 5/29/10 08:26 AM, Ytaker wrote:
Well, a lot of it is just humans trying to obey the word of god and failing. Plus, you're not required to follow any of the legal stuff from the old testament.Who said that? Where's the part that God said the Old Testament doesn't count? And if I don't have to follow the "legal stuff" then I don't have to follow The 10 Commandments right? Time to stop bashing the gays too since that was old testament right? Also leave the witches alone since that's old testament right?
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I mean, the punishments. Back then, they didn't have prisons for the majority of crimes, because prisons are expensive, and so they had a very different system of punishments. You're not required, even from an all the bible is true perspective, to have those punishments when there are other options.
10 commandments, loved by most christians, but, from exodus "13 You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles
14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God)." We're not required to tear down the altars, pillars, or sacred poles, what with those civilisations being dead. That's a culturally specific commandment.
Gay stuff is new testament too. Even the most hardcore of conservatives don't advocate the death penalty for being gay, though.
The majority of their criticisms were focused on necromancers, and they were often contained within attacks on pagan religions, which gives some of the context. Later christians, of learning at least, believed that magic was impossible as only god could violate natural law. This has never been a big thing. It's been fairly clear to people of learning that magic doesn't actually exist, for a long time.
St Augustine made the above argument, as to why magic is impossible, and so the church punishments tended to be fasting, or pilgrimages. They still condemned witchcraft and such, but had no special need to do it as hard as the israelites.
Also if we're not supposed to follow it, why didn't Christians chuck it out whent he Bible was voted on and formalized (which nobody ever addresses that one for me either: how can you vote on and decide on the mortal plane the will of the divinine)?
You are supposed to follow it. A lot of it's just not that relevent to us now. It just tells us what god's will was for that country at that specific time.
Baring revelations, every book of the bible was definitely written by someone in the first century AD. Plus, a lot of the other books were either clearly self serving or ... loopy, to say the least. The Gospel of Marcion is a rewritting of Luke to fit his prejudices. The Shepherd of Hermas presents jesus as a god/angel hybrid. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus reveals himself to be sexist when he says that a woman must make herself male to enter the kingdom of heaven. Plus, they were all obviously written long after Jesus.
The way they determined whether something was fit to go in the bible was normally by how close it was to Jesus, who they accepted widely as human god.
So it's morally correct and it's from God...but we don't have to follow it...is anybody else completely baffled and seeing the contradictions so far?
Is our community a rural community with little governments, no prisons, regular starvation, and severe youth crime?
I'm not saying disagreements are all lies. I'm saying there SHOULDN'T be disagreements because it's "The Word of God" it's supposed to be His law and His order and the way people need to live to please Him. So what's in the book is what those that believeth in Him should be following and there shouldn't be debate over it ever right? Or else we're not following "The Word of God" anymore.
It was written millenia ago in another language in another culture. If you can read ancient hebrew, greek, you have good common sense, understand how idioms of that time worked, and understand their culture, then sure, it should be fairly obvious to you. Our culture is very, me centred. Their culture was much more, community, good of the whole, centred. Understanding that is one of the biggest parts to understanding the whys.
Indeed, which again is what I'm getting at. Why should "The Word of God" hold such sway and people feel bound to any of it if they have the ability to interpret it to fit their biases and then those in the religious hierarchy get to tell you whether that's good or bad based on their biases? Why does it really have any hold when all I've been hearing since I answered the question is three followers basically saying "well it is...except when it isn't". I mean, I know what my answer to that is, but I'm just curious how someone can hold it up as "The Word of God" as "The Way" and yet decide there are parts of "The Way" that don't apply.
Well, what you seem to be getting at is a different point. How do people believe it's the word of god, and still not believe and follow all of it? Because they don't believe it's all the word of god. Simple enough. Jesus is the focus of Christianity, now and always. The charming, kind, widely seen as cool face of god. Plus, emotional connection with god is the foundation for a huge amount of religion. Praying, and getting answers, and the feeling of God in your mind.
"if they have the ability to interpret it to fit their biases and then those in the religious hierarchy get to tell you whether that's good or bad based on their biases"
There's a limit to how flexibly you can interpret it. Obviously, some readings are extremely strained, and unlikely. But yes, a lot of people are less trusting of church authorities. Others aren't, because they trust higher up authorities to give them accurate information. Like members of the catholic church.
If God is making unclear laws, then God is fucking up. Especially because we have these other passages where God makes Himself pretty clear on what he wants and doesn't want people to do (The 10 Commandments). So why is it massively clear in some parts, but there's others where we can say "well, it's vague and open to interpretation"? Hell, even the parts that are explicitly clear seem for some organizations and people to be open to interpretation so again...how is it "The Word of God", immutable moral law, if it's not absolute?
Well, it's not clear to us. It was more clear to the Hebrews. The priests developed the Talmuds, based on their understanding of the old testament, to provide specific laws for situations.
Look at modern law. A twisted network of cross references, ideals, and interpretations. Unclear laws are the norm. You'd have to be pretty arrogant to think you could just go into another country, pick up their translated lawbooks, and understand everything in them in your first read. The bible is less complicated, but the same certainly applies to its laws.
Plus, another point to make- reality loves contradictions. Tricky situations, where there's no absolute truth, just lots of relative truths competing to be heard. Competing factors, which, situation by situation, all demand to be heard at varying intensities. Crime is inherently like this. Everyone is the hero of their own story, everyone believes the other person started it.
Like, "Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" my interpretation of this is you shouldn't respond to a petty insult with your own insult. A continuation of the eye for an eye principles, that you shouldn't over respond, and start a cycle of revenge. There are however, lots of situations where the bible calls you to resist evil (worse evils) and fight back hard.