Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
Author Message
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #21
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-28-2009 10:56 AM)Artifice Wrote:  SHELLFISH ARE IMMORAL!!!

Even bearded clams???
05-28-2009 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #22
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
"Copy and Paste" sums up the Theological IQ of this thread
05-28-2009 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #23
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-27-2009 08:02 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm not religious and don't get my morals from the Bible, and it's none of my business and I don't care what two peter puffers do in private, but it's an abomination. Now if it's two women, then it's entertainment. Sue me.

Way to represent "freethinkers"! I agree on aesthetics, but ...

(edit: there's no implied connection between what's above and what's below)

(05-27-2009 08:05 PM)Tripster Wrote:  You either TAKE THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE and work with it from that perspective, or you are just making a fool of your self.

In practice, this doesn't make sense, because the Bible was never a whole work until it was consolidated from many disparate components. I'd go further and say that it doesn't make sense to read the Bible as a whole without recognizing that it is a compilation.

In principle - if the Bible were a monolithic work, why would it in principle not make sense to view individual edicts on their own virtues? Would it really have hurt God to have started out by saying "don't eat pork unless you cook it thoroughly, otherwise it's not healthy ... and make sure you store it with salt if you don't roast it right away"?

When discussing the kosher/halal laws, I've heard Christians say it was forbidden because the primitive Jews did not have the technology or basic common sense to handle it safely and not get trichinosis. I've read Muslims claim that the high infidelity rates in the West are due to the consumption of pork - there is some presence in it that affects the brain. I've heard honest Jews say they don't eat pork because God told them not to. There is only one of those answers that makes the slightest bit of sense to me.
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2009 11:07 AM by I45owl.)
05-28-2009 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #24
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
More fun with cut-and-paste:

(05-27-2009 05:35 PM)Artifice Wrote:  
Quote:"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

(05-28-2009 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  
(05-28-2009 10:56 AM)Artifice Wrote:  SHELLFISH ARE IMMORAL!!!

Even bearded clams???

(05-28-2009 11:00 AM)Rebel Wrote:  That's why I devour any one that I get my hands on. It's their only salvation.
05-28-2009 11:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Artifice Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,064
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 168
I Root For: Beer
Location:
Post: #25
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-28-2009 11:02 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  
(05-28-2009 10:56 AM)Artifice Wrote:  SHELLFISH ARE IMMORAL!!!
Even bearded clams???

You have to marry first. Then you're in like Flynn.

(05-28-2009 11:02 AM)GGniner Wrote:  "Copy and Paste" sums up the Theological IQ of this thread

[Image: hypocrite_fish.jpg]
(This post was last modified: 05-28-2009 01:39 PM by Artifice.)
05-28-2009 01:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tripster Offline
Most Dangerous Man on a Keyboard
*

Posts: 3,140
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 16
I Root For: The Best Only
Location: Where the Action is
Post: #26
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-28-2009 11:06 AM)I45owl Wrote:  
(05-27-2009 08:02 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm not religious and don't get my morals from the Bible, and it's none of my business and I don't care what two peter puffers do in private, but it's an abomination. Now if it's two women, then it's entertainment. Sue me.

Way to represent "freethinkers"! I agree on aesthetics, but ...

(edit: there's no implied connection between what's above and what's below)

(05-27-2009 08:05 PM)Tripster Wrote:  You either TAKE THE BIBLE AS A WHOLE and work with it from that perspective, or you are just making a fool of your self.

In practice, this doesn't make sense, because the Bible was never a whole work until it was consolidated from many disparate components. I'd go further and say that it doesn't make sense to read the Bible as a whole without recognizing that it is a compilation.

In principle - if the Bible were a monolithic work, why would it in principle not make sense to view individual edicts on their own virtues? Would it really have hurt God to have started out by saying "don't eat pork unless you cook it thoroughly, otherwise it's not healthy ... and make sure you store it with salt if you don't roast it right away"?

When discussing the kosher/halal laws, I've heard Christians say it was forbidden because the primitive Jews did not have the technology or basic common sense to handle it safely and not get trichinosis. I've read Muslims claim that the high infidelity rates in the West are due to the consumption of pork - there is some presence in it that affects the brain. I've heard honest Jews say they don't eat pork because God told them not to. There is only one of those answers that makes the slightest bit of sense to me.

I45, you have a point up to a degree of correctness, then it falls short.

There are many many more books that were written at the same time and some by the same people like John, Paul, and others, that were not included in the Finished Bible as we know it today.

Many many scrolls that did not make the Canonized cut, but have no less power and prophecy to them like the "Book of Jasher" and such other works are taken very seriously in study value. They STILL provide valuable Biblical Information to Theologians and Biblical Scholars, but were not included in the Canonized Combined King James Bible of today for several reasons that are too lengthy to go into here.

So, you have to take the Bible as we have it today as a Whole, or you lose all perspective on how it melds into a cohesive set of Individual Books that make a Single Point as best as they can from out of all the other Scrolls/Books.

If all Scrolls, Parchments, and Books were included into a Bible, it would have 100,000 Pages to have to try to understand and several million words to work thru.

That is why the different Accounts in the Bible are called "Books" and not "Chapters" .... they make no bones about the fact that each New Writing is an Individual Book that gives an Account Authorized by God to be Written as it is Written with not a word added or taken away.

So yes, in accuracy, we have an Edited Compilation called the Bible, but the other works, just because they were never Canonized are not forgotten or not studied.

.
05-28-2009 07:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #27
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
Ok, but you still haven't explain the pork thing. Maybe God could've said "Look - don't eat swine because you just don't know how to cook it right. My son - he's a master chef - he'll explain it to you later...".

Seriously - if the "included" books are just the same as the "not-included" books, then you've still got a problem. If you read the Bible as a whole, you're still not getting the total picture. The whole-Bible argument leads you to think that you're only reading the cliff notes if you read KJV, and you'd better get reading before you make any judgments.

Conversely, the fact that the Powers That Be made the judgment (in your narrative) that "this is good enough" to get the whole picture also argues that you could view some subset of the Bible as providing enough of a narrative to provide a coherent moral guide for a given situation.

I will note that I don't buy your narrative insofar as I think that judgments about what books were included/not included have at least something to do with the Bible's editors acting as to filter/direct what narrative was portrayed. i.e. the factors of "aw, no-one's ever going to believe that" or "well, these two books can't both be true" or "the guy that wrote this one was a f'in nut case".

Finally, I'd say that the structure of the Koran - being a singular document with a well known source - is more like what I'd expect of a divine-inspired document. It at least provides the possibility that specific real-life problems can be addressed from a singular moral guide. The fact that that specific guide is an epic failure* and that the coming of Islam appears as a dark storm front of impending doom on the horizon gives you an idea of how I feel about it as "revealed truth".

* judging by the words regarding the "death of innocents" and the many many suicide bombings inspired by the Koran that specifically target innocents
05-29-2009 08:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,855
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3214
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #28
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-29-2009 08:59 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Ok, but you still haven't explain the pork thing. Maybe God could've said "Look - don't eat swine because you just don't know how to cook it right. My son - he's a master chef - he'll explain it to you later...".

Never quite heard it that way, but it's not a bad way to explain it. My old church used to have "children's sermons" before the main sermon, then the kiddos were escorted out to the nursery, to retun in time to take communion with their families. I'm thinking this might be a pretty good approach for a "children's sermon."

Bottom line: That's pretty much what He DID say, isn't it?
05-29-2009 12:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,855
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3214
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #29
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-27-2009 01:33 PM)Artifice Wrote:  When will they finally ban shellfish?

Well, they've at least gone as far as abalone.
05-29-2009 12:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #30
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-29-2009 12:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(05-29-2009 08:59 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Ok, but you still haven't explain the pork thing. Maybe God could've said "Look - don't eat swine because you just don't know how to cook it right. My son - he's a master chef - he'll explain it to you later...".

Never quite heard it that way, but it's not a bad way to explain it. My old church used to have "children's sermons" before the main sermon, then the kiddos were escorted out to the nursery, to retun in time to take communion with their families. I'm thinking this might be a pretty good approach for a "children's sermon."

Bottom line: That's pretty much what He DID say, isn't it?

I think what he originally said is words 2, 3, and 4. Everything else was interpretation after the fact - that's my argument above about the perception of this law by Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
05-29-2009 01:35 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #31
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-28-2009 08:07 AM)zeebart21 Wrote:  
(05-27-2009 09:59 PM)Rebel Wrote:  BTW, **** the Mormons. If the libs want to show some balls, venture on down to Compton and express your outrage. Blacks are one of the MAIN reasons you didn't get that **** ruled in your favor.

Oh, and blacks are RARELY Mormon.

Reb, I think you are being ignored. Libs have a dilemma where this is concerned. I'll bet you get NO response from any of em.
We try to ignore Reb. He usually doesn't have anything intelligent to say-unless it is military hardware and killing(same with Trippy).
05-29-2009 01:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #32
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-28-2009 11:02 AM)GGniner Wrote:  "Copy and Paste" sums up the Theological IQ of this thread
Actually, I thought it summed up your college diploma.
05-29-2009 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #33
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
up for outlawing Pork Robert?
05-29-2009 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Paul of Troy Offline
The Man Who Watches
*

Posts: 2,483
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 223
I Root For: Tennessee, Troy
Location: Dothan, AL
Post: #34
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-27-2009 05:35 PM)Artifice Wrote:  
Quote:"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

Imagine what would happen today if we killed every child who was disrespectful to his parents. Fundamentalists explain this verse away, saying that it is part of the Old Levitical Holiness Code and is not meant to be taken literally.

But the above verse is just a mere 3 verses before Leviticus 20:13, one of their favorite anti-gay scriptures which, of course, they do choose to apply literally.

It's just incredible, isn't it?

Fundamentalists change their entire methodology of scriptural interpretation when it suits their purpose, even when dealing with verses that are a just couple of sentences away from each other!

Quote:"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

Imagine what would happen today if we deported every man and woman who had ever had sex together while the woman was having her period. Fundamentalists decline the opportunity to take this verse literally, which is merely 5 verses after Leviticus 20:13.

Quote:"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

Did you ever wonder where racist, uneducated people in the 19th century got the idea that slaves were just property and not people? Directly from the above verse, which fundamentalists do not, of course, take literally.

Quote:"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"Bible-believing" fundamentalists never preach against the evils of shaving, as they do not take this verse literally for our day. Of course, they most certainly would do so if they had a personal bias against shaving, but apparently, they do not.

Quote:"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

As you can see, the book of Leviticus also prohibits the eating of pork (a swine is a pig). Of course, fundamentalists do not choose to use this verse to preach against eating pork. Sadly, however, they have no problem abusing the Bible to condemn gay and lesbian people. Remember, it's about their personal prejudice against gay people, not about a true desire to understand what the Bible actually says.

Quote:"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

Farmers in this country almost always grow more than one kind of crop in their fields. In fact, they often must do so for ecological reasons. Fundamentalists do not apply this verse literally. If they were to preach against farmers, there would be an uproar, and rightfully so.

Fundamentalists also ignore the Biblical command to not wear clothes that have two different kinds of material. The shirts that many fundamentalists are often seen wearing must be a cotton/polyester blend, the most common in the United States of America. They may be "Bible believing" Christians, but this is yet another verse that they don't believe should be applied to today.

An "abomination?"

Fundamentalists also like to use Leviticus 18:22 to justify their anti-gay prejudice. That verse says, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Perhaps you have heard some people refer to gay people as an "abomination." They get the idea directly from Leviticus 18:22. But did you know...

* The Bible says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination:

Quote:"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

Quote:"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

Quote:"Whatever in the water does not have fins or scales; that shall be an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:12)

In conclusion . . .

The above exercise proves that anti-gay fundamentalists selectively quote the Bible. They enthusiastically and openly embrace those parts of the Bible which affirm and justify their own personal, pre-existing prejudice against gay people, while declining to become as enthusiastic about verses like the ones listed above.

After all, how many times have you heard a fundamentalist say that eating shellfish was an abomination? But they sure don't hesitate to say it about gay people, do they? What does that tell you?

Artifice :ncaabbs:

+1
05-29-2009 01:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GGniner Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,370
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 38
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #35
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
How many Orthodox Jews read this board or are voter in California?
05-29-2009 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tripster Offline
Most Dangerous Man on a Keyboard
*

Posts: 3,140
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 16
I Root For: The Best Only
Location: Where the Action is
Post: #36
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-29-2009 08:59 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Ok, but you still haven't explain the pork thing. Maybe God could've said "Look - don't eat swine because you just don't know how to cook it right. My son - he's a master chef - he'll explain it to you later...".

Seriously - if the "included" books are just the same as the "not-included" books, then you've still got a problem. If you read the Bible as a whole, you're still not getting the total picture. The whole-Bible argument leads you to think that you're only reading the cliff notes if you read KJV, and you'd better get reading before you make any judgments.

Conversely, the fact that the Powers That Be made the judgment (in your narrative) that "this is good enough" to get the whole picture also argues that you could view some subset of the Bible as providing enough of a narrative to provide a coherent moral guide for a given situation.

I will note that I don't buy your narrative insofar as I think that judgments about what books were included/not included have at least something to do with the Bible's editors acting as to filter/direct what narrative was portrayed. i.e. the factors of "aw, no-one's ever going to believe that" or "well, these two books can't both be true" or "the guy that wrote this one was a f'in nut case".

Finally, I'd say that the structure of the Koran - being a singular document with a well known source - is more like what I'd expect of a divine-inspired document. It at least provides the possibility that specific real-life problems can be addressed from a singular moral guide. The fact that that specific guide is an epic failure* and that the coming of Islam appears as a dark storm front of impending doom on the horizon gives you an idea of how I feel about it as "revealed truth".

* judging by the words regarding the "death of innocents" and the many many suicide bombings inspired by the Koran that specifically target innocents

I45, I totally see your point and understand why you may look at it that way.

Man, to try to explain it is going to take so much writing that it will get fairly boring.

I will try to make a Summary as best I can.

Let me preface it with this fact: The word "Testament" was changed by Man from "Covenant" - - - the Bible should actually and accurately read, "The Old Covenant and The New Covenant" - - the Word of God is a Covenant from God to we humans, yet it is also a Testament to what occurred that is written about.

Firstly, the Old Testament is based fully on the Laws of God given to Moses (Adam is in there, just not a Prophet as Moses was) and the Law was LAW .... you break it you die.

And you have to understand that God had never created Man before or a Creature with a Soul and Free Will .... so even as Omniscient and Omnipotent as God is, all this was as much of a Learning Experience for Him as it was and still is for us.

God had to change rules and basics of the Law to mesh with our Insecurities, Weaknesses, and just plain Stubborn Behaviors or none of us would have had a chance after Earthly Death.

Look at the Decree of Divorce that Moses was allowed to give the Israelites as they trampled thru the Desert for their 40 Years Punishment. That was NEVER intended, but God had to see Humans for what He made us and that was greedy, fallible, selfish beings and He had to shift accordingly or the alternative was to wipe us all from the face of the Earth under Penalty of Sin which is Death. "The Wages of Sin is Death" or Separation from God.

It is plainly said that "If you live by the Law, you will Die Under the Penalty of the Law" and that is where you have to go from the Old Testament to the New Testament and the Changes that came with Jesus Christ and the Law.

Not one single human being can survive Gods Law - - it is just too perfect for us to be able to abide by and we were all going to Hell except for a chosen few who were doing the will of God such as Moses.

I mean look at all the Laws we have on Mans Books today and our Prisons are full to bursting because Humans Break the Law.

And God saw that Rituals and Ceremony from within the Law was sending people to Hell just as fast and He again had to adjust so we would all not be obliterated from the face of the Earth.

Paul, a Jewish Apostle to the Gentiles and Roman Citizen, was made an Apostle to the Gentiles so he could teach them of Christ and God the Father, but had authority to not force upon them the Laws of Eating Certain Foods or Eating Certain Foods on Certain Days or Holy Days. Like the Passover with eating only unleavened bread - - that is part of the Law that if you Put Your Self Under the Threat and Power of and you NOT abide by it to the letter, it is pure Sin.

As a Gentile, I am not bound by the Passover in the same way a Law Abiding Jew is. I eat all kinds of stuff during the Passover and I have NOT Sinned by doing so - - according to Paul and all of his writings as well as the actual Words of Jesus.

Jesus stated that "I come not to change one letter of the Law, but to give you everlasting life that you can Survive the Law and from my Grace, can enter into Heaven". It simply means that before Christ appearance on the Earth, no one was ever found Righteous and therefore could not enter into Heaven.

Well I have to look at it this way, God saw an empty Heaven that was Void of Humans and He had to deal with it or what was the use of His Creating Us in the First Place ??

So enter Jesus Christ who would "take on all the Sin of the World from the Beginning of Time to the Last Day of the Earth" by allowing himself to be the Final and Ultimate Sacrifice for ALL SIN.

That is why we no longer offer animal sacrifices as a Biblical Law. Jesus Christ being Slain on the Cross WAS the Final and Ultimate Sacrifice for all Human Beings no matter what Sin they had committed. Jesus thus absolved humans from ever having to offer a Blood Sacrifice to God again to Atone For or be Forgiven of their Sin.

Sure, if you have made a Promise to God to live under the Law of only eating Kosher (certain parts of certain animals) and you stray from that Ritual/Law, then you have Sinned and must Atone or ask Forgiveness for that Breaking of the Law.

In the New Testament, Paul was given authority to state in the Name of Jesus Christ, that "All God's Creatures Were Clean To Eat" and that eating anything that you could consider food was no longer a Sin unless you made it one by calling it a Law to Obey. This is where the quote that "It is not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but it is what comes out of him that does so" .... eat anything you can stomach to eat and God holds no grudges, make it a Promise or a Ritual to God and you best keep it or yes, you are Committing Sin by breaking the Law.

Old Testament Jews who still live by the Law of Moses have to deal with their choice to do so at the risk of their own peril if they fall away from that Law. Gentiles who believe in Christ as the Savior know they must STILL Adhere to the Commandments, but unlike in the Old Testament, now there is the Grace of Christ to give your Salvation if you Transgress or Sin or Break any of the Commandments.

And to try to shorten it up a bit, I like knowing that God and Christ used a varied number of Individuals to Write "Books", rather than me relying on a single Human Being like Mohammad's Singularity of Word as Truth and Gospel to live and die by as Muslims seem to like to do.

I don't know what people try to get out of "Finding Homosexuality" in the Bible being an OK Thing when it is Straightforwardly States that Sodomy is a Sin period and taking up with another of the "Same Sex" is an Abomination - - how do you draw an OK from Bible for being a Homosexual from those very unambiguous words is way beyond me.

In the Bible, Homosexual Behavior is a SIN and that is that ... it does not say one can not be Forgiven of it, it says it is wrong and if you Die while in Sin, you have screwed up. That is what I know.

ALL SIN is forgivable except for one and this is "THE Single Mortal Sin" and it is to "Deny the Holy Spirit" .... in effect, if you Deny God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit, there is no Turning Back and No Forgiveness for that - - in essence you have said God, Christ, The Holy Spirit, and Heaven does not exist and you have Separated your self from God and He then will Separate Him self from you likewise. I mean it is a give and take relationship being a Christian - - there are NO Instant Christians if you die before you are Saved by Grace and Salvation. But then that is a Judgment Call when you go before Christ on that Day.

I honestly try to Judge no one and I hope that when I die and walk up to the Gates of Heaven, I see some of the more awful sinners of history waiting inside to greet me .... this way, I will be pretty sure that I have made it too, since some of the ones I am speaking of have been some pretty bad boys compared to me ... but then a Sin is a Sin is a Sin and Christ will treat All that come before Him on that basis and He will Judge, not me.

So you see, my Bible tells me that All of us who Believe in Christ and God's Word have a chance at Salvation without having to perform strange and weird Rituals and Abide by Strange and Ritualistic Laws and Customs i.e. Eating Foods.

If you want to eat Worms then eat Worms, if you want to eat Pork, eat it until you hate eating it, simply take it as a gift from God, Bless it, and Eat.

Once you start enacting Promises, Laws, and Rituals to God over it, then you are subject to Sin and Death and Death means when you Pass from this Earth, you are Separated from God and no longer have the opportunity to have Grace Give You Salvation.

This is why you have Jews of the Old Testament and Jews of the New Testament ... being Jewish does not mean you only believe in the Law of Moses - - a heck of a lot of Jews are Christians as well because they believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior the same as I do.

At least in the Bible, we have the Gift of Grace of Salvation, I don't know that the Koran offers much leeway from their Strict Laws and Rituals as the Bible Does.

And sure, if you read the Bible out of Context, you will be more confused afterward than your were before - - it seems like a hodgepodge if you look at it that way.

That is why you need a Bible that uses "Scripture References" that will take you from a Verse in the Old Testament directly to it's Co-Scripture in the New Testament and then back to the Old Testament. One Biblical Verse can have several Scripture References that can take you all over the Bible to show you a Pure Point or Definition or Reason for why something was said or why something happened in the way it did.

The Bible is not a Novel to be "Skip Read", it is a Text Book for long years of study just to get a small bite of knowledge - - it can't be learned overnight or in a single sitting reading. It is meant to be studied.

So as long as this post is, it is about the best I can do to make it short enough and try to explain it and not skirt your Question or the Answer.

And how did "Shell Fish and Homosexuality" get mixed up in the same question ... 03-lmfao 01-wingedeagle

.
05-29-2009 07:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WoodlandsOwl Offline
Up in the Woods
*

Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #37
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-27-2009 08:02 PM)Paul M Wrote:  I'm not religious and don't get my morals from the Bible, and it's none of my business and I don't care what two peter puffers do in private, but it's an abomination. Now if it's two women, then it's entertainment. Sue me.

+1 04-rock
05-29-2009 08:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
I45owl Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,374
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 184
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Dallas, TX

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(05-29-2009 07:49 PM)Tripster Wrote:  Let me preface it with this fact: The word "Testament" was changed by Man from "Covenant" - - - the Bible should actually and accurately read, "The Old Covenant and The New Covenant" - - the Word of God is a Covenant from God to we humans, yet it is also a Testament to what occurred that is written about.

The etymology of these two word choices as applied to the Bible would probably be a very interesting study. But, someone like me has to view this as a "testament" that is inherently fallible - that's why Thomas Jefferson sought to rewrite (edit) the Bible removing any reference to Jesus as divine.

(05-29-2009 07:49 PM)Tripster Wrote:  God had to change rules and basics of the Law to mesh with our Insecurities, Weaknesses, and just plain Stubborn Behaviors or none of us would have had a chance after Earthly Death.

This introduces God as the principle moral relativist. (And, I don't think your characterization of the Bible in this way or my interpretation of the same is unreasonable, given our perspectives).

And, to reconcile it with the topic at hand:

(05-29-2009 07:49 PM)Tripster Wrote:  I don't know what people try to get out of "Finding Homosexuality" in the Bible being an OK Thing when it is Straightforwardly States that Sodomy is a Sin period and taking up with another of the "Same Sex" is an Abomination - - how do you draw an OK from Bible for being a Homosexual from those very unambiguous words is way beyond me.

In the Bible, Homosexual Behavior is a SIN and that is that ... it does not say one can not be Forgiven of it, it says it is wrong and if you Die while in Sin, you have screwed up. That is what I know.

The natural question here as well is - does this law only make sense in the context of God dealing with your insecurities? Does this mandate make any sense (beyond PaulM's interpretation above)?

The Bible has certainly set the stage for arbitrary moral laws that putatively carry the threat of damnation to be whimsically "vacated". Again, if kosher laws are followed because "God said so" and all of a sudden God doesn't say so any more, then is it surprising that some people figure "WTF", and figure that there is no more objective justification to bans against homosexuality than there is against pork and shellfish?

(05-29-2009 07:49 PM)Tripster Wrote:  Not one single human being can survive Gods Law - - it is just too perfect for us to be able to abide by and we were all going to Hell except for a chosen few who were doing the will of God such as Moses.
...
And sure, if you read the Bible out of Context, you will be more confused afterward than your were before - - it seems like a hodgepodge if you look at it that way.

The Bible is not a Novel to be "Skip Read", it is a Text Book for long years of study just to get a small bite of knowledge - - it can't be learned overnight or in a single sitting reading. It is meant to be studied.

There have been a number of folks that have questioned the purpose of maintaining a moral system that is impossible for man to follow - or at least is such that there is only one man (though divine) who is ever capable of following it. But, in the lines I've quoted above - this is why I view religion - specifically Christianity in this context - as an endeavor meant to engross people in a cycle of guilt and powerlessness (vulnerability). Christianity is far from the only one to do this - $cientology does it in spades with "Auditing" (all the while bilking its mind-fuc|< victims of many hundreds of thousands of dollars to advance).

At any rate, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and hope that the exchange has given some decent introspection - clearly there's not much sense in using this discussion to change each others' minds ... it's better used to provide perspective in each others' positions.
06-01-2009 01:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brookes Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,965
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 165
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesDonators
Post: #39
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(06-01-2009 01:59 PM)I45owl Wrote:  At any rate, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and hope that the exchange has given some decent introspection - clearly there's not much sense in using this discussion to change each others' minds ... it's better used to provide perspective in each others' positions.

Regardless of context, a better phrase has never been written on this board.
06-01-2009 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tripster Offline
Most Dangerous Man on a Keyboard
*

Posts: 3,140
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 16
I Root For: The Best Only
Location: Where the Action is
Post: #40
RE: When Will California Make the Right Moral Decision?
(06-01-2009 02:53 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  
(06-01-2009 01:59 PM)I45owl Wrote:  At any rate, I appreciate your thoughtful responses and hope that the exchange has given some decent introspection - clearly there's not much sense in using this discussion to change each others' minds ... it's better used to provide perspective in each others' positions.

Regardless of context, a better phrase has never been written on this board.

Yes, very much agree .... good banter is always a way to higher knowledge and that is what we all seek from what ever source.

I just wish we could learn that we all have a purpose and could live side-by-side with no more War, Hatred, and the Ills that come with that kind of Monotone Ideology.

I honestly do not want to see war and wish we could stop all the ones ongoing everywhere on this planet .... I know it is a dream that will never come true and a single trip to the doctor today proved it.

My wife and I stopped to fuel up and we immediately heard gun shots just a few blocks away ... everyone stopped for a moment and and then cranked right back up like it was the norm.

Just after this happened, two van loads of people were gassing up all the way across the parking lot from each other and they started fighting like big dawgs with each other for no apparent reason.

Then a White guy behind us and a Black Guy that pulled to the pump across from us started on each other about something.

I mean where and when will Humankind start wanting just to live and let live man ????

I am lost on this crap and it seems we are at the breaking point for a total flame out.

I would honestly love to see the world just go to all Peace all the Time.

And Robert, please don't drop one of your stupid remarks in here ... what I have said I mean ... I am tired of always feeling the need to be armed to hilt for basic survival when I simply stop to get freggin gas.

.
06-01-2009 06:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.