[LordOpie]

I'll take part of that question G'Funk...

unhealthy in one fashion is lying and deceit. Adultery is wrong, period. Suggesting otherwise, like on TV, is wrong.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I'll take part of that question G'Funk...

unhealthy in one fashion is lying and deceit. Adultery is wrong, period. Suggesting otherwise, like on TV, is wrong.

Of course, there is a difference between "unhealthy" and "normal".

According to most, lying and deceit is "wrong" but so many people engage in it that one could make the argument that it is "normal" to some extent.

Also, is adultery wrong 100% of the time? Some couples prefer to "swing" or engage in threesomes. That's still adultery, is it not? Is it wrong? Is it unhealthy? Is it abnormal?

 

[stevew]

Some couples prefer to "swing" or engage in threesomes. That's still adultery, is it not? Is it wrong? Is it unhealthy? Is it abnormal?

No, I think adultery is sleeping with someone without your significant other knowing it.

Is swinging wrong? No.

Unhealthy? In what way?

Abnormal? To me, no.

 

[fluff]

No, I think adultery is sleeping with someone without the other knowing it.

If someone slept with me without me knowledge I'd be very annoyed. I would definitely consider it wrong as well.

 

[stevew]

If someone slept with me without me knowledge I'd be very annoyed. I would definitely consider it wrong as well.

Things tend to come out wrong early in the morning.

 

[valve bouncer]

If someone slept with me without me knowledge I'd be very annoyed. I would definitely consider it wrong as well.

I bet you wonder why your drinks always taste funny, you have one and next thing you know you wake up in a cheap motel with a fiver stuffed up ya ring-piece.

 

[fluff]

I bet you wonder why your drinks always taste funny, you have one and next thing you know you wake up in a cheap motel with a fiver stuffed up ya ring-piece.

A fiver?! I should be so lucky...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

A fiver?! I should be so lucky...

Yeah, it's usually a missing kidney.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

No, I think adultery is sleeping with someone without your significant other knowing it.

Meriam-Webster:

Main Entry: adul·tery
Pronunciation: &-'d&l-t(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ter·ies
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of avoutrie, from Middle French, from Latin adulterium, from adulter adulterer, back-formation from adulterare
: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery

Is swinging wrong? No.

Unhealthy? In what way?

Abnormal? To me, no.

That's the point. Normality is completely subjective. DT wants to preach to us what normality is using his subjective definition. Problem is that what is normal to him is not necessarily normal to everyone else.

 

[stevew]

Meriam-Webster:


That's the point. Normality is completely subjective. DT wants to preach to us what normality is using his subjective definition. Problem is that what is normal to him is not necessarily normal to everyone else.

That I understand.

I don't consider swinging adultery.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

That I understand.

I don't consider swinging adultery.

According to the dictionary, it is. I'm sure DT (the original target of the questions) would agree that it is as well, which serves the purpose of the argument quite well. It's semantics, maybe, whether swinging is indeed adultery or not, but the argument stands on its own merits all the same.

 

[Echo]

I find it extremely funny that it has come to using the dictionary to define what is morally right and wrong

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I find it extremely funny that it has come to using the dictionary to define what is morally right and wrong

Hey, the dictionary is for more clear than the Bible.

 

[Echo]

Hey, the dictionary is for more clear than the Bible.

I'm not totally convinced that the Bible necessarily defines what is morally right and wrong either, but it's a good place to start. I wonder if people will ever start thinking for themselves.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I'm not totally convinced that the Bible necessarily defines what is morally right and wrong either, but it's a good place to start.

That depends on which passages you read. There are passages about being kind and compassionate and others where people are told to commit genocide.

I wonder if people will ever start thinking for themselves.

Unfortunately, I doubt it, at least not in any of our lifetimes.

 

[Echo]

That depends on which passages you read. There are passages about being kind and compassionate and others where people are told to commit genocide.

That's what I meant.

 

[Reactor]

I'm not totally convinced that the Bible necessarily defines what is morally right and wrong either, but it's a good place to start. I wonder if people will ever start thinking for themselves.

Bible's a great place to start....If you want to own slaves and stone people to death for working on Sunday.

 

[Echo]

Bible's a great place to start....If you want to own slaves and stone people to death for working on Sunday.

My point is more that, for people who can't figure out for themselves what's morally right or wrong and need to be told, there are churches which have attempted to use the bible to give those people moral direction and take their money.

 

[fluff]

Basic Christian morals are not a bad starting place. It's the 'advanced' Christian fundamentalists who are f*cking it all up.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Basic Christian morals are not a bad starting place. It's the 'advanced' Christian fundamentalists who are f*cking it all up.

The funny thing is that we call them "Christian morals." If you want to abide by "Christian morals" you should be out stoning adulterers, etc. The morals that we have really come from societal advancement and evolution. It wasn't Christianity that decided slavery was immoral, but an evolving society. Really, we should be saying that basic societal morals are not a bad starting place.

 

[Andyman_1970]

The funny thing is that we call them "Christian morals." If you want to abide by "Christian morals" you should be out stoning adulterers, etc.

Where in the New Testament is it taught that followers of Jesus should stone adulterers?? What did Jesus say about the chick that the religious leaders were about to stone???

It wasn't Christianity that decided slavery was immoral, ...........

I'd say it was the seed for that movement to abolish slavery.

 

[Reactor]

Where in the New Testament is it taught that followers of Jesus should stone adulterers?? What did Jesus say about the chick that the religious leaders were about to stone???

But, alas, most of the "Christian" h8rs love to use the old testimate to justify their actions, and the bible is both new and old.

I'd say it was the seed for that movement to abolish slavery.

To it's credit yes. But it was also used by other people as grounds for keeping slaves. The American civil war was in part a cultural war between new and old testimate, new and old christianity.

 

[ohio]

Basic Christian morals are not a bad starting place. It's the 'advanced' Christian fundamentalists who are f*cking it all up.

While I align (generally) with your moral standards, who is to say your morals are the real ones instead of theirs? The fact is, you're both looking at the same document... do you think maybe the morals come from somewhere else, and you just selectively confirm them with the Bible?

 

[ohio]

I'd say it was the seed for that movement to abolish slavery.

Because the abolitionists were Christian? So were the slave-owners. And cited the Bible in arguing their beliefs? So did the slave-owners.

The abolitionists were Christian because this happened to occur within a Christian society. It could have been in any other religious context and the same thing would have occured, but abolitionists would have argued in whatever terms make the most sense to their society.

One could also point out that slavery has never occured on the same scale nor with the same focus on race and superiority as what was perpetrated by Christians.

 

[Andyman_1970]

But, alas, most of the "Christian" h8rs love to use the old testimate to justify their actions, and the bible is both new and old.

And your point is? Again I ask where in the New Testament are Gentile followers of Jesus commanded to stone a sinner?

Those Christians who use the OT to justify hate haven't a hermenutical clue how the OT relates (or even if it does) to their lives.

To it's credit yes. But it was also used by other people as grounds for keeping slaves. The American civil war was in part a cultural war between new and old testimate, new and old christianity.

I agree. Unfortunately the Bible was misused to justify slavery, it has been misused (I'd say most of the time this stems from not taking into account the context and background of the author of said book, and by "author" I don't mean God......LOL) for alot of things, hating homosexuals for instance. However the "seed" of Jesus' teachings that indicate all people should be treated with respect and dignity could have been the "seed" for the movement of abolishing slavery.

 

[Andyman_1970]

The abolitionists were Christian because this happened to occur within a Christian society.

See my comments on Reactors post.

One could also point out that slavery has never occured on the same scale nor with the same focus on race and superiority as what was perpetrated by Christians.

Sadly (because of what happened in the past, not that I agree with you) I agree.................alot of crappy stuff has been done in Jesus' Name. Personally, if Jesus showed up today and asked to speak at most local churches they'd probably run Him off.

 

[clancy98]

Having two "heartthrob" dudes like Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhall as masculine gay cowboys just seems like massive overcompensation to put over a movie about a gay love story.

Like the next one will be about two extremely masculine gay marines, starring vin diesel and that guy from the transporter. It just seems like a mixed message, or maybe its just Hollywood easing places like Utah into reality.

 

[Reactor]

And your point is? Again I ask where in the New Testament are Gentile followers of Jesus commanded to stone a sinner?

Those Christians who use the OT to justify hate haven't a hermenutical clue how the OT relates (or even if it does) to their lives.


I agree. Unfortunately the Bible was misused to justify slavery, it has been misused (I'd say most of the time this stems from not taking into account the context and background of the author of said book, and by "author" I don't mean God......LOL) for alot of things, hating homosexuals for instance. However the "seed" of Jesus' teachings that indicate all people should be treated with respect and dignity could have been the "seed" for the movement of abolishing slavery.

In my experience both good and evil has been done in the name of virtually every religion. Evil deads were usually committed by people who were using religion for their personal power and agenda (Phelps...Et. al.). These people in the Christian world usually quote the old testimate, usually bits of multiple passages strung together.

Good is frequently done by people who really want to do the right thing, and follow the spirit of whatever their teachings are. These people usually expound living the spirit of their teachings, and tend to find any individual passage or detail less important than the overall teaching.

 

[Andyman_1970]

These people usually expound living the spirit of their teachings, and tend to find any individual passage or detail less important than the overall teaching.

Sounds like a rabbi I know............:wink:

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Where in the New Testament is it taught that followers of Jesus should stone adulterers?? What did Jesus say about the chick that the religious leaders were about to stone???

Most Christians also read the OT. Or is their support for the Ten Commandments completely misplaced?

Either way, I'm speaking hyperbolically, but the point remains. You can find just as much good and bad in the Bible.

I'd say it was the seed for that movement to abolish slavery.

You could say that Christianity is the seed for all the practices of our civilization in a way. Of course, that would include all the good and the bad yet again.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

To it's credit yes. But it was also used by other people as grounds for keeping slaves. The American civil war was in part a cultural war between new and old testimate, new and old christianity.

If that is true, who really won that battle?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

And your point is? Again I ask where in the New Testament are Gentile followers of Jesus commanded to stone a sinner?

Those Christians who use the OT to justify hate haven't a hermenutical clue how the OT relates (or even if it does) to their lives.


I agree. Unfortunately the Bible was misused to justify slavery, it has been misused (I'd say most of the time this stems from not taking into account the context and background of the author of said book, and by "author" I don't mean God......LOL) for alot of things, hating homosexuals for instance. However the "seed" of Jesus' teachings that indicate all people should be treated with respect and dignity could have been the "seed" for the movement of abolishing slavery.

Andyman, you know I'm not trying to disrespect you, but your post smacks of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Jesus wasn't all sweetness and light, nor is the NT. You can't simply throw out the bits you disagree with and say that people who don't throw those out aren't "True Christians"

 

[Andyman_1970]

Most Christians also read the OT. Or is their support for the Ten Commandments completely misplaced?

Most Christians are Gentiles, and per Acts 15 (the Jerusalem council) the "rules" a Gentile follower of Jesus are to abide by are outlined..........no mention of stoning.........again context is key here (not pointing to you OMGF, but pointing to those Bible thumpers who ignore context).

The only other binding command for a Gentile follower of Jesus is the two most important commands He outlines in Mark 12, love God and love others all the other 611 commands hang (or are more "heavy" to use a rabbinic idiom). No stoning is mentioned here for a follower of Jesus.

If someone is truly going to claim they are a disciple of Jesus (a talmid in the Hebrew) then that person's whole life will be devoted to living out those two commands of their rabbi.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Most Christians are Gentiles, and per Acts 15 (the Jerusalem council) the "rules" a Gentile follower of Jesus are to abide by are outlined..........no mention of stoning.........again context is key here (not pointing to you OMGF, but pointing to those Bible thumpers who ignore context).

The only other binding command for a Gentile follower of Jesus is the two most important commands He outlines in Mark 12, love God and love others all the other 611 commands hang (or are more "heavy" to use a rabbinic idiom). No stoning is mentioned here for a follower of Jesus.

If someone is truly going to claim they are a disciple of Jesus (a talmid in the Hebrew) then that person's whole life will be devoted to living out those two commands of their rabbi.

So, they can ignore all else in the Bible is what you are saying?

Edit: Aren't some "gentiles" really descendants of Jews as well? Since the disciples were Jewish, wouldn't it stand to reason that some of the resulting Christians were also of Jewish lineage?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andyman, you know I'm not trying to disrespect you, but your post smacks of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Jesus wasn't all sweetness and light, nor is the NT. You can't simply throw out the bits you disagree with and say that people who don't throw those out aren't "True Christians"

Ok.............please elaborate.

As for the New Testament, not all of it is binding to followers of Jesus, that is not everything in it is suppose to be reinacted by followers of Jesus either then or today.........again context. I'm not a Jew, so I can't go up to the Temple courts and teach, although many of the disciples did in Acts.

Also, as for Jesus' harsh words, the vast majority of the time they were aimed at the religious leaders of the day, not "sinners" who were all screwed up, but the pious ones who thought they had it all figured out.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Ok.............please elaborate.

As for the New Testament, not all of it is binding to followers of Jesus, that is not everything in it is suppose to be reinacted by followers of Jesus either then or today.........again context. I'm not a Jew, so I can't go up to the Temple courts and teach, although many of the disciples did in Acts.

Also, as for Jesus' harsh words, the vast majority of the time they were aimed at the religious leaders of the day, not "sinners" who were all screwed up, but the pious ones who thought they had it all figured out.

Andyman, your argument is basically that no true Christian would support slavery because it is not supported by the Bible. But, that's obviously incorrect, else there were no true Christians throughout much of history. You are working from our evolved set of morals and applying them to historical examples when people had a different set of morals. Since the Bible hasn't changed in that time, culture and civilization must have. Our morals have changed since the Bible was written, and the morals that we enjoy now are our own.

 

[Andyman_1970]

So, they can ignore all else in the Bible is what you are saying?

Edit: Aren't some "gentiles" really descendants of Jews as well? Since the disciples were Jewish, wouldn't it stand to reason that some of the resulting Christians were also of Jewish lineage?

All of the Bible is useful for learning, I'm not saying to throw the Bible out by any means...........all that "junk" in the Bible is good stuff to learn from so it doesn't get repeated..........King David for instance. But if all you're looking for is the "must do's" for a Gentile follower of Jesus they boil down to Jesus' two most important commands (His "yoke" as a rabbi, which is His interpretation of Torah) and Acts 15.

The early church was entirely made up of Jews up until Acts 10, after that Gentiles started to convert to that sect of Judaism, known as "The Way" (which doesn't mean the way to Heaven). Some Gentiles probably do have some Jewish lineage in them. One slightly related thing to keep in mind is that no where in the NT are Jews told not to be Jews (ie observe the Torah), they are however admonished not to force the Gentiles to be Jewish.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andyman, your argument is basically that no true Christian would support slavery because it is not supported by the Bible. But, that's obviously incorrect, else there were no true Christians throughout much of history. You are working from our evolved set of morals and applying them to historical examples when people had a different set of morals. Since the Bible hasn't changed in that time, culture and civilization must have. Our morals have changed since the Bible was written, and the morals that we enjoy now are our own.

I don’t think I’ve ever asserted that those who supported slavery were not “true” Christians, I have however asserted that they fundamentally misinterpreted the Text. The whole who is or is not a “true” Christian is not for me to decide, I leave that for the ultra fundamentalist KJV only folks……………..LOL

I would say our Western/Greek understanding of the Scriptures, the Gospels especially have “blinded” people for, IMO, a long time with respect to things like what Jesus teaches His followers about how to treat others. Slavery in Jesus day from a Jewish point of view was a “bad thing” so to say that our moral understanding evolved to what it is today (implying all previous understandings were wrong) is not entirely accurate at least from a Biblical point if view.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

All of the Bible is useful for learning, I'm not saying to throw the Bible out by any means...........all that "junk" in the Bible is good stuff to learn from so it doesn't get repeated..........King David for instance. But if all you're looking for is the "must do's" for a Gentile follower of Jesus they boil down to Jesus' two most important commands (His "yoke" as a rabbi, which is His interpretation of Torah) and Acts 15.

The early church was entirely made up of Jews up until Acts 10, after that Gentiles started to convert to that sect of Judaism, known as "The Way" (which doesn't mean the way to Heaven). Some Gentiles probably do have some Jewish lineage in them. One slightly related thing to keep in mind is that no where in the NT are Jews told not to be Jews (ie observe the Torah), they are however admonished not to force the Gentiles to be Jewish.

So, all that junk to learn from could just as easily be disregarded in your opinion, so long as one loves god and other people? Why do Christians even need to go to church more than once? What about the Christians of Jewish heritage? Are they more responsible for following the NT?

Either way, you've drawn a line in the sand that most would not agree with. How do you square your stance with theirs?

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I don’t think I’ve ever asserted that those who supported slavery were not “true” Christians, I have however asserted that they fundamentally misinterpreted the Text. The whole who is or is not a “true” Christian is not for me to decide, I leave that for the ultra fundamentalist KJV only folks……………..LOL

Saying they aren't true Christians or saying they are subverting the Bible is pretty much the same thing in my book.

I would say our Western/Greek understanding of the Scriptures, the Gospels especially have “blinded” people for, IMO, a long time with respect to things like what Jesus teaches His followers about how to treat others. Slavery in Jesus day from a Jewish point of view was a “bad thing” so to say that our moral understanding evolved to what it is today (implying all previous understandings were wrong) is not entirely accurate at least from a Biblical point if view.

I'm calling BS on that. Slavery was common practice of the day and is completely fine in the OT. A Jew back then would have followed the OT.