|
|
|
ivanisavich
Skeptic Friend
67 Posts |
 Posted - 01/21/2004 : 06:44:47 [Permalink]
|
Thank you Dave.
Now, anyways, Ranae...was my last post reasonable (as in, are you satisfied that I see where you were coming from, etc)...or do you still disagree with what I've said? |
 |
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 07:02:12 [Permalink]
|
| Was that really necessary, Dave? I had indicated I wasn't going to discuss Biblical stuff any more. Jeez. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 07:58:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Renae:
Let me ask you something: by what moral standard do you live? By what right do you say that your standard is any better than mine? Do you simply say that we all have to listen to our own consience? What if my consience tells me something different from your consience? How can you say that everyone should follow their consience, and then tell anyone that they're doing something wrong? Do you believe in Right and Wrong? If so, how do you know what it is? What if one person's consience tells him to steal, and another person's says it's wrong? If your only moral code is your own consience, then you have no right to tell anyone that what they're doing is wrong. But you and I both know that there are things that are Wrong. Murder is wrong, and if someone claims that there is no Right or Wrong and goes on a killing spree, we'd call them insane.
Oh, by the way, if you don't care about the Bible, then you have no business on this thread. Even if you hate the Bible, but want to discuss it, you're welcome. But take your philosophy somewhere else.
Hippy
Herein lies the problem. There is no moral absolutes. Morality is defined by the society within which they exist. If someone decides that murder is ok and goes on a killing spree in direct opposition to the morals of the society, we would call them a sociopath. Not necessarily insane. In some societies, murder is ok under certian circumstances. I'll list a few.
Inuit tribesmen up to the assimilation into the society of the settling Europeans would routinely set elderly members of their tribe who were unable to care for themselves adrift on an ice flow to die from exposure. Japanese parents who did not want an infant could leave it on a mountain unattended for one month. If the child survived, it was considered holy and had to be taken care of for the rest of it's life.
I believe most of society have moral codes which forbid murder and theft. I recognize that not all societies have these particular morals.
Renea, "Sorry if my philosophy and reason intruded on your Biblical dogma, Hippy" does not aid your arguement. I would like to see fewer personal attacks. If someone uses one against you, by all means point it out to them. Reflecting the same contempt back at that person is not going to prove your point, refute the other person's points, nor get someone to listen to your arguement. While Hippy's feeling of ownership for the thread is odd, he did originally start the thread to discuss the Bible. As such, it is somewhat reasonable to want to get it back on it's original topic.
Hippy, from analyzing Renea's post, I get that she does not accept as relevant the Bible. She was, however, discussing that document and questioning the relevance of a document which sections date from 2500 BCE to 1309 CE. She also questions adherence of a snapshot of moral code which has changed since 1309 CE. In particular, the idea of the subserviance of women to their husbands. She questions morals as being fixed and eternal. It has been my experiece from studying other religions and cultures that morals are societally based. As a society evolves and experiences new situations and events, morals are generated or modified as is necessary. For example, before the advent of the camera, Christians never had the question of whether it was idolatry. Had you lived in the 1700's, would you have had the same opinion on portraits?
I also would like to make a distiction. Morals are a set of behaviors that society expects us to follow. Ethics are a set of behaviors that we expect ourselves to follow. Not stealing is a moral and an ethic for me with some reservations having to do with survival of myself and my family. A friend of mine once sumed the difference between morals and ethics this way.
Morals are a set of behaviors you expect everyone else to follow, but you do not necessarily expect yourself to follow.
Ethics are a set of behaviors that you expect yourself to follow, but you do not expect everyone else to follow. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2004 : 09:12:07 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
While Hippy's feeling of ownership for the thread is odd...
Not really, since I'd spent a lot of time early on suggesting and/or demanding that people avoid hijacking it. In other words, his feelings of ownership are partially my doing. Unfortunately, I now believe the particular subject and intent of the OP can never be protected from hijackings, especially since both Hippy and I hijacked it for a little while.
There's just something about the subject which makes it quite easy to go completely off topic. Probably because the basic assuptions involved are questionable, and unless you're willing to give them a pass for the sake of the intent of the OP, the first thing many of us will think of is, "well, that the Bible is correct is often a misconception." Posting anything along those lines, however, instantly derails the thread.
I must say, I've learned quite a bit from this thread, though perhaps not as much about Biblical Misconceptions as I would have liked. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2004 : 08:13:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Valiant Dancer wrote:quote:
While Hippy's feeling of ownership for the thread is odd...
Not really, since I'd spent a lot of time early on suggesting and/or demanding that people avoid hijacking it. In other words, his feelings of ownership are partially my doing. Unfortunately, I now believe the particular subject and intent of the OP can never be protected from hijackings, especially since both Hippy and I hijacked it for a little while.
There's just something about the subject which makes it quite easy to go completely off topic. Probably because the basic assuptions involved are questionable, and unless you're willing to give them a pass for the sake of the intent of the OP, the first thing many of us will think of is, "well, that the Bible is correct is often a misconception." Posting anything along those lines, however, instantly derails the thread.
I must say, I've learned quite a bit from this thread, though perhaps not as much about Biblical Misconceptions as I would have liked.
I found his "post on the subject or get out" odd rather than his reasonable expectation that the thread would actually focus on Biblical Misconceptions.
One I found particularly entertaining over the years was one where someone claimed the "Little Drummer Boy" of song actually existed in the Bible. (It doesn't)
I have seen several misconceptions raised outside this forum on what the Bible does and does not say. For the most part, people on this board actually do primary research on the subject instead of relying on others. (gee, Skeptic Freinds Network, who'da thunk it? :) ) I think that Hippy intended on dispelling the doctorine which is unBiblical. (You've probably been "warned" of some horrible punishment by some extremist fundie twit which is unBiblical before.) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 14:27:37 [Permalink]
|
Renae, Dave:
Let me rephrase what I said concerning my "ownership": There is no real point in anyone posting about the Bible's reliability, because that is not the intent of this thread. The same goes for my remark about your philosophy, and other's remarks on morals being based on society. PAY ATTENTION HERE. This thread is supposed to be about what the Bible says, and which text base should be considered most accurate to the intent of the original authors. I'm sorry if I ever come off as rude, I'm just trying to be forthcoming.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2004 : 22:58:21 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Let me rephrase what I said concerning my "ownership": There is no real point in anyone posting about the Bible's reliability, because that is not the intent of this thread. The same goes for my remark about your philosophy, and other's remarks on morals being based on society. PAY ATTENTION HERE. This thread is supposed to be about what the Bible says, and which text base should be considered most accurate to the intent of the original authors. I'm sorry if I ever come off as rude, I'm just trying to be forthcoming.
I've said much the same thing, at least three times in this thread already. And as I said recently: yes, the thread is supposed to be about misconceptions about the Bible, but it appears that few people are willing to accept - even for the sake of discussion - the assumptions about the Bible's reliability or worth that are required for them to participate as you or I might like them to. That's not a fundamentally bad thing, though - they are, after all, people posting on the Skeptic Friends Network. Questioning basic assumptions is much of what this board is all about.
I'd like to say, to you and everyone else, that in the future, if you feel there's a problem with the amount or kind of oversight a thread is receiving, your first thought should be to send a private message ("PM") to one of the moderators or administrators here (PM buttons are available on our posts and in our profiles). The people acting as moderators of the different folders here are shown on the Folder List (administrators are moderators for all of them).
While my job here certainly is not to ensure that everyone plays nice with everyone else 100% of the time, a part of my job is to try to ensure that things run reasonably smoothly, as best I'm able (I'm only human, too). It would definitely not hurt to PM me and ask me to do more (or less, as the case may be) "policing" of a thread than I might appear to be doing at any given time, or with any other concerns you might have. I can't guarantee that I'll act on what you ask, but I will at least try to explain why or why not.
(And of course, if I am the source of your problems, send a PM to Kil or @tomic.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2004 : 15:36:13 [Permalink]
|
| I know its probably too late to reply to this, but I just wanted to mention one little tidbit so to speak: Biblically, from my understanding, there is such a thing as a Holy Spirit. The issue isn't whether or not the Trinity exists, but rather what the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does. Nehemiah 9:20 hits on this: "You also gave Your good Spirit to instruct them.....". And in John 14:26--"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My nam,e He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." Also--1 John 2:27 "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same annointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." Anyway, my point being that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, one cannot comprehend/understand the meaning of the Scriptures. It is the Holy Spirit that teaches us what the Scriptures mean, because it is the Holy Spirit which gives us their interpretation. |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2004 : 08:54:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
I know its probably too late to reply to this, but I just wanted to mention one little tidbit so to speak: Biblically, from my understanding, there is such a thing as a Holy Spirit. The issue isn't whether or not the Trinity exists, but rather what the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does. Nehemiah 9:20 hits on this: "You also gave Your good Spirit to instruct them.....". And in John 14:26--"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My nam,e He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." Also--1 John 2:27 "But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same annointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." Anyway, my point being that without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, one cannot comprehend/understand the meaning of the Scriptures. It is the Holy Spirit that teaches us what the Scriptures mean, because it is the Holy Spirit which gives us their interpretation.
And by what criteria do you judge who has this "Holy Spirit" and who does not? How do you know that the atheists on this board don't have the "Holy Spirit"? How do you know that non-Christians don't have the "Holy Spirit"?
How can you put such limitations on a God which "works in mysterious ways"? Religion and spirituality are two different things. A religion is a set of beliefs surrounding a God belief. Spirituality is a state of mind. The great ones had it. King, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Einstein, Fermi, et al.
Can you honestly tell me you know the mind of God? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/04/2004 : 14:31:20 [Permalink]
|
Valiant, I cannot by any means tell you I know exactly what goes on in the "mind of God", however I just wanted to state, according to my particular interpretation of the Bible, and according to the doctrine which I follow, that without the Holy Spirit one cannot interpret exactly what the Bible is saying beyond the plan of salvation.
"And by what criteria do you judge who has this "Holy Spirit" and who does not? How do you know that the atheists on this board don't have the "Holy Spirit"? How do you know that non-Christians don't have the "Holy Spirit"?"
Well, again according to my take on Christianity and the Bible, the Bible does say "You will know them by their fruits...", speaking of the fruits of the Spirit found in Galatians 5:22. One method, perhaps, of "judging" whether a person has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them would be to evaluate what "fruits" are prevalent in their lives. Another way would be to evaluate the gifts of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentacost....(not gonna get into tongues...). On the day of Pentacost, the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke in tongues. The basis of judging, in my opinion, whether or not a person is filled with the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with whether or not they speak in tongues, but rather the effect on the persons abilities. For example, the disciples were given a greater capacity to love. The disciples were given a greater compassion on the crowds. The disciples gifts were enhanced, and were also more effective, given the result of the use of their gifts. The disciples were given a boldness to preach and to bear witness to what they believed, rather than cowering in fear. Maybe these signs could be held as evidence that a person is filled with the Holy Spirit? |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 07:13:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jarrid
Valiant, I cannot by any means tell you I know exactly what goes on in the "mind of God", however I just wanted to state, according to my particular interpretation of the Bible, and according to the doctrine which I follow, that without the Holy Spirit one cannot interpret exactly what the Bible is saying beyond the plan of salvation.
"And by what criteria do you judge who has this "Holy Spirit" and who does not? How do you know that the atheists on this board don't have the "Holy Spirit"? How do you know that non-Christians don't have the "Holy Spirit"?"
Well, again according to my take on Christianity and the Bible, the Bible does say "You will know them by their fruits...", speaking of the fruits of the Spirit found in Galatians 5:22. One method, perhaps, of "judging" whether a person has the Holy Spirit dwelling within them would be to evaluate what "fruits" are prevalent in their lives. Another way would be to evaluate the gifts of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentacost....(not gonna get into tongues...). On the day of Pentacost, the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke in tongues. The basis of judging, in my opinion, whether or not a person is filled with the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with whether or not they speak in tongues, but rather the effect on the persons abilities. For example, the disciples were given a greater capacity to love. The disciples were given a greater compassion on the crowds. The disciples gifts were enhanced, and were also more effective, given the result of the use of their gifts. The disciples were given a boldness to preach and to bear witness to what they believed, rather than cowering in fear. Maybe these signs could be held as evidence that a person is filled with the Holy Spirit?
By that definition, most people on this board have the "Holy Spirit". |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Jarrid
Skeptic Friend
101 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2004 : 07:50:35 [Permalink]
|
| Haha you're probably right there...I kinda messed up on one little part: The disciples were given a boldness to preach and to bear witness to God. |
I don't have to go swimming through an outhouse to know I wouldn't like it." |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
