A Bible question!!

[MrFun]

I was going to reply seriously to your post, Felch, but then I read your sig line.

[Felch]

[Tupac Shakur]

5th/6th commandment.

QFT

Thread resolved in the first response.

[Ben Kenobi]

How do you know the first part, and why do the wrongs need to be made up? Isn't that what forgiveness is all about?

That's why Christ was crucified. To pay a debt for our sins. It's like stealing 300 dollars from someone and then telling the person you were sorry but not paying the person back. I can forgive someone for it but that doesn't mean that the debt is not still owed.

Thats exactly what it means, to forgive is to dismiss the breach. If you punch me in the arm and I forgive you, I dont then punch you back. If you're right, then God will be punishing Christians - after he forgives them. Does that make any sense? Not to me...

Forgiveness involves restitution, righting the wrong. You still have to go back and fix things.

Sins != crimes, but you didn't address the issue - you cannot forgive a trespasser and then throw them in a cage. And we got plenty of people in jails who never took an eye, or a tooth... So Christians wouldn't throw stones at the adulteress, but they would throw her in a cage?

I said some sins. As for drug dealers, jail is more merciful than the hell that they put families through. Drug dealers are scum.

How can I say the good outweighs the bad when we aint talking about anyone specific? People are different, some are very good, some are very bad, and most are in between.

But what makes 'good' people good? The bible says that only God is good.

[Ben Kenobi]

Christian fundies do not apply all of the rules in Leviticus to themselves

Are you a fundy, Mr. Fun?

[Elok]

There are no "constitutional rights" in the US (I assume that this is the US you are talking about). There are "constitutionally protected rights," and some (but, explicitly, not all) of the protections are listed in the Bill of Rights. Among the others not listed, but recognized, are rights such as self-defense and privacy. Roe v Wade was decided on the basis of the right to privacy, not the "right to abortion." That is made quite evident by the fact that RvW explores where the state's power (not right; states have no rights) to over-ride a woman's right to privacy with regards to abortion begins.

I'm aware of the argument behind Roe, and most of the history of it. Don't you see something problematic about the position that the court can call for "implied" rights without any explicit or reasonably implicit constitutional support? I mean, if the SCOTUS has the power to enumerate rights that way, why the heck did we have amendments 1-8 in the first place? And how does such a position not, in practice, give them the power to strike down any law at all, for any reason they please? Unbound by the need for constitutional justification, couldn't they argue anything up to, including or exceeding "we find that a law against juggling avocados is an undue restriction of a circus performer's right to privacy, whereas the juggling of oranges, bananas or mangos may be restricted"?

What the bible, or Hammurabi's Code, or Norse mythology says about abortion may be interesting, but it is moot from a legal and real-world standpoint.

Never said it wasn't. I'm pro-life on the grounds that (to me, at least) the position is self-evident, and all pro-choice arguments strike me as irrelevant. Which, in turn, is why I seldom bother to join such arguments, or most arguments about religion with non-believers--there's no common ground, so why bother? I just felt like chucking that in there to tease MrFun.

EDIT: I basically rewrote this post for politeness just now. The original reply was much snippier, since I'd just come off a 20-hour bus ride. I apologize if anybody actually read the pissiness and was offended.

[BlackCat]

About this daughterkiller, or rather the daughter. It looks like she was way more concerned that she would die as a virgin and wanted a couple of months to "mourn" that fact, wich she was given. Of course, she could have done that litterally, but is that realistic ? Isn't it more reasonable that she would have used that time fornicating all that she could ? Further, when doing so, it would be pretty reasonable that she became pregnant, so when dady kills her, it would be an abortion supported by god.

If so, abortion is actually accepted by god

[Jon Miller]

That she was mourning dying a virgin is why many theologians think that what was sacrificed was not her life but was her ability to marry.

Making a point of that wouldn't make so much sense otherwise.

JM

[Aeson]

Which violate the 2 commandments - love God and love others

Some of them do. Some of them violate the 2 commandments the other way though. While I think Christianity would be much better off to just reduce it to what you are saying (and logical extensions), it's not what Jesus taught solely. Part of that is just explaining how to show love for God and others in cases where it's not abundantly obvious (eg. Oaths), but some of it doesn't fit in at all with that theme, or even seems to be in contradiction.

For instance, what Jesus says about how to view a divorced woman as an adultress. Even if she was not at fault at all. If you were just going by "love God and love others", why would you take such a derogatory view of a woman simply because her husband had divorced her? It runs contradictory to "love others" and "judge not", but it is part of Christ's law.

Other things, like the money changers in the temple, illustrate times when there is conflict between "love God" and "love others/turn the other cheek".

[Aeson]

But Christian fundies point out Leviticus when talking about gay people. So I'm wondering why so many Christian fundies still wear clothing of mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, and so on.

"aren't"?

(There actually are some who do avoid mixed fabrics and other silly stuff though.)

[Tupac Shakur]

Drug dealers are scum.

**** you. You have no idea what's it's like to have to hustle just to make some money to feed your daughter.

Blame the users, not the hustlers. I don't blame priests just because people like you misuse the product they're pushing.

[kentonio]

If people hurt themselves killing other people is that a bad thing?

I haven't posted here since 2003, but I felt the need to come back and call you a complete dick for that line.

Seriously.

[Kidlicious]

Actually, I think the opposite is true; you have to look to someone to give you the received knowledge of what the stories mean, because the inward understandings of the stores leave you with entirely the wrong impression (like the definite conclusion that Yahweh is a first-class dick).

A couple of things. First I believe that the Holy Spirit makes the truth known to all that God has chosen not just church leaders. Second God's truth never changes but what men believe, even church leaders, changes. Even Popes believe differently.

I want to say much more but don't have much time now.

[grumbler]

Yes, I'm aware of the legal arguments for it. They're all horse****. There's no compelling reason why the right to privacy should include abortion but not, say, doing hard drugs or beating your children.

This is called "argument by assertion" and, while it may make you feel good, it is intellectually lazy and most unpersuasive.

The entire ruling was arbitrary, and saying it's a right to privacy rather than a right to abortion is semantic hair-splitting for the sake of the present discussion--if you call this thread a discussion.

The ruling was the farthest thing from arbitrary - read it yourself. The use of the correct terminology when responding to nonsense arguments about "Constitutional rights" is both proper and persuasive, whether you like it or not.

I'm pro-life on the grounds that (to me, at least) the position is self-evident, and all pro-choice arguments patently absurd.

Which is absolutely right and proper, unless you want to limit the actions of others based on your own unthinking beliefs. Then it becomes exactly the kind of fundamentalist oppression we deplored when we saw it in in totalitarian and theistic regimes.

BTW, I have changed my recommendation: don't bother reading Roe v Wade. It is an intellectual argument on the topic, which you wouldn't understand, given that you have decided that it is, sight unseen, "patently absurd."

Which, in turn, is why I seldom bother to join such arguments. I just felt like chucking that in there.

You are wise to avoid intellectual arguments on the topic, if your best argument is that "my belief is self-evidently true and yours are patently absurd."

[grumbler]

A couple of things. First I believe that the Holy Spirit makes the truth known to all that God has chosen not just church leaders. Second God's truth never changes but what men believe, even church leaders, changes. Even Popes believe differently.

I can understand and respect this argument, but would simply point out that it is, again, an appeal to another authority rather than to one's own understanding in order to avoid interpreting the bible as it is written. That is fine for you as an individual believer, but doesn't make a case for the use of anything in the bible as a guide for anything but individual behavior (which, I note in advance, you may not even be arguing for).