I must respond to the comment that morality is a practical matter. Nothing could be further from the truth. For someone who does not believe in God or a religious moral code, than morality is different for each person. What you think is moral someone else will think is immoral. There is nothing practical about something that varies from person to person. For example, I assume you would think that taking another person's life is wrong and therefore immoral. However, there are others who clearly believe that taking a life is moral under some circumstances. Such as the elderly who are infirm and can no longer benefit society but instead are a strain, some believe that it is moral for them to be killed for the benefit of society as a whole. There is no absolute moral code outside of religion that would prevent this thought from being "moral". Yet it undermines the "practical" thought that morality would prevent us from taking a life, even if it is for alleged beenfit of others. My point is that it is religion that gives and has always given the world a moral code not a random notion of what is practical. This does not mean that there haven't been horrible deeds conducted in the name of religion, of course there have been. But that does not discount the overall benefit that has arisen from a moral code that finds its beginnning in religion or a belief in God.
Posts by RWC
-
171The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
-
171
The vote is in: SCIENCE vs RELIGION......who won?
by Terry inhistory has demonstrated:.
religion is following orders by implicitly trusting someone or something.. science asks questions.. religion purports to answer questions.. science seeks to disprove its own conclusions.. religion seeks to reinforce its own dogma.. science is error-correction toward adjusting for realities as they unfold.. religion internalizes against reality by mocking up a substitute.. science is the most recent development of the human mind.
technology proves science to be successful in advancing human progress.. religion disdains human progress and waits for the end.
-
-
RWC
From my perspective the question of which won, science or religion, is an spurious argument to make. Both have clearly benefited society and both have caused harm. If benefit is only measured in technological advances science clearly wins unless you fail to include the religious motivations of those striving to make the advances. I can't imagine that some of these advances were not pursued by people who did so because they were religious and wanted to benefit society to help others as they were taught in the Bible. By the same token, to claim that science is not influenced by faith or a belief system is nonsense. Take for example the "scientific" work done by Nazi Germany based on the belief that their race was superior and they attmepted to prove it through science. This may have been fake science, but nonetheless it was done in the name of science. My thought is that society cannot exist the way we know it without the influence and contributions from both.
-
53
Bible is God's word?
by Moxy inid like to hear some *reasoned* explanations for why you believe the bible is gods word.
ive been so fascinated by the study of *real* biblical scholarship since i began educating myself, i now find it incredulous that i used to take the bible as divine, along with all jws and tons of christians, including a good number here.
so id like to entertain your very best lines of evidence that this is the real deal.. mox
-
-
RWC
I have been coming to this board for a while now and have engaged in several of these debates always taking the sie of the Christian defender of the Bible. I have noticed two groups of people who take the opposite side. One that has a gneuine respect for others beliefs and who will engage in an honest intellectual discourse and one that will be litle others beliefs and raise nothing but sarcasm and insults. To the first group I respect your right to disagree. To the second I would ask that you attempt to refrain from being the non believer's equivilant of a fundamentalist.
As for the Bible being God's word, trying to prove this to someone who will throw out the Bible itself is like trying to prove who won the presidential election without counting the votes. The Bible itself must be the starting point to prove its veracity as God's word. What does it say about its origin, what is its history, has it stood the test of time and is it internally consistent. From there you can go to outside references to prove its validity. I would start with the story of Jesus and the historical accuracy of his existence. Unlike the bold statements that there is no proof of him outside of the Bible, that is incorrect. But beyond what was written about him outside of the Bible, look at how did his life changed the whole social structure of the world he lived in. In a matter of a very short time in historical terms, Jewish culture was changed because of his existence.
Also, look at the number of people who went to their deaths claiming to be eyewitnesses. Note I said eyewitnesses, not simply believers. There is a big difference. Muslims who blow themselves up for their beliefs are not the same as people who claimed to have been eyewitnesses to a ressurrection and went to their deaths without recanting and claiming they made it all up. For you to think that it was all made up, you must base that belief on no evidence. There is no evidence that the story was fabricated. I know, you will say, but the Romans never mentioned it in thier writings. Think about that argument in a present day context, would you say that if our Government doesn't write about something that is happening in Iran that it must never have happened? The Romans wrote about the death of Jesus but they did not write about his miracles. Does that logically mean they did not occur?
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
Since when is Monty Python common sense? My point was that to us it might sound a little odd, but that does not mean that it isn't true or that there is some supernatural component to the exercise.
There is no need to supress what you beleive to be common sense in order for me to have faith in God. In fact, "common sense" is so subjective that what you consider to be common sense maybe nonsense to someone else. What is common sense today may be shown to be utterly worthless and stupid tomorrow. To me that is not a sound basis for my life.
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
Dutchie,
I am referring to the verses preceding the one we were discussing. Numbers 5:5- When a man or a woman wrongs another in any way and so is unfaithful to the Lord, that person is gulity and must confess the sin he has committed. He must make full restitution for his wrong...
The verse is clear that it applies equally to both sexes, so if a man does something wrong he would be punished. Jewish law made it clear tht adultry by both men and women was wrong. Exodus 20:14. Jesus expanded the actual act to lusting after another women in his heart. Matthew 5:27
The Jewish faith and Chrisitianity place a strong emphasis on a chaste marriage, by both spouses. A man is to love his wife as much as Jesus loved the Church, to the point of giving his life for her. That is clearly showing women respect.
A reading of the covered head of the women must be taken in the context of which it was written. During Paul's day, men prayed with their haed uncovered as a sign of reverence and respect. Women prayed with their head covered as a sign of modesty and immodest women were considered immoral. The essence is that both men and women wer to show respect, but in different ways.
Yes the Bible does say that man is the head of the household, particulalry the spiritual head. But that does not mean he can treat his wife with disresepct or as his chattel as you claim. He has entered into a scred covenant with her, as the Catholics claim, a sacrament that was instituted by God and Jesus. With his role comes great responsibility and obligations. He must guide his family in a Chrisitan manner, he must show his wife undying love and fidelity and he must take care of her and protect her. Does that mean he cannot portect and take care of herself? Of course not. But if a man is to have a Chrisitian marriage he obligates himself to follow these rules.
The same is true for the speaking in the Church. You find this in 1 Corinthians 14:34. Paul was writing to the Corinthians. Prostitution associated with pagan religions has been theroizied as the reason for this instruction. Regardless, Paul in other contexts indicated women would be involved in the worship - Acts 16: 14-15, Acts 18:26. One of the heros of the early church was Priscilla who cared for Paul and taught with him in her home. It certainly does not mean that women were not important nor wouldn't be involved in building the Church.
It is a shame that you have a view that the Bible degrades women. I would suspect that you have been subjected to hat type of behavior in the name of the Bible, but I believe tha it couldn't be furhter from the truth.
By the way, I use the New International Version Disciple's Study Bible, the American Catholic Bible and the Ryrie Study Bible
God Bless
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
Numbers Chapter 5:11-28 is the test for the unfaithful wife. It was to be imposed when the husband felt she had been unfaithful yet she did not admit it and there were no witnesses. It is clear that the test is largely symbolic but there is no doubt a belief that God would intervene to show the truth. If nothing happened the women would be vindicated.
Purity was very important to the Jewish people. The verses before talk about expulsion form the camp for both men and women. They also talk about both men and women paying restitution for the harm they had done to others. So it is not inconceivable that if the test proved that the woman was unfaithful that theman would be punished as well.
I do admit that it does sound alot like Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail tests for a witch, but it was written for a particular time and I do believe that there could very well be a supernatural component to it.
I think that it is in line with the overall theme of punishment for wrongdoing. The focus on bad behavior and not on the sexes.
That is also why I do not think that me listing a line of verses taht shows how men are treated is double talk. The Bible is clear that the focus in a persons acts, both good and bad, not on their sex.
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
On the contrary. I think woman are strong morally and emotionally and can be the backbone of a family and ultimately a culture. They should be shown the upmost respect and dignity. I also believe that the Bible taken as a whole supports that belief.
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
Dutchie, For all of the passages you quote, I could equally quote passages that say bad things will happen to men when they disobey God. For example, your quote in Genesis about childbirth fails to include the curse on men that he will toil hard all his life and than he will die. To me that does not sound like unequal treatment.
I can also quote passages that show woman are treated with respect and dignity. For example:
Proverbs 31:10 -31 A wife of Noble character She is worth far more than rubies; She is clothed with strength and dignity; She speaks with wisdom; Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also and he praises her; Give her the reward she has earned and let her works bring her praise at the city gate
John 8:4- -11 - Woman caught in the act of Adultry and Jesus says that whoever is without sin let him cast the first stone. He saves her life and than does not condemn her
1Peter 3:7- Husbands in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner(meaning physically weaker) as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life
Hebrews 13:4- Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure. for God will judge the adultrer and the sexually immoral (This applies equally to men and women)
Ephesians 5:25- Husbands love your wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her....In the same way husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself... For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and become united to his wife for the two will become one flesh
Genesis 2:24- For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh
Genesis 24:66- Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife and he loved her
Exodus 20:17 Thou shall not covet your neighbors wife
Your examples must be read in their context. For example Isaiah 3:16 is referring to the wrath of God over the entire people of Isreal in part for their treatment of the poor. It it referring to the women having jewels and finer things at the expense of not taking care of the poor. It also says that the men will be killed. Matthew 18:25 is in the middle of a parable wher the end result is that the king took pity on the man and wiped out his debt. That same man failed to take pity on someone else who owed him less and the man was punished for his lack of compassion. It is not a lesson on how to treat women.
A full reading of the Bible and its teachings reflect that women are treated with dignity, respect and love. They are punished just like men for their wrongdoing and are praised for their faithfullness. They are to be treated by thier husbands with unselfishness and they are to be protected and admired. How can that be bad?
God Bless
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
As for the Bible's treatment of woman, I disagree with the view that it treats woman as a second class citizen. Jesus's teachings uplifted women and showed them tremendous respect. First, his Mother Mary is considered holy and he was obedient to her. His first miracle was done at her insistence. He took steps to take care of her as he was dying on the cross. Second, he tells men that they must be true to their wives, be faithful to them, not to commit adultry and to love them as much as he loved the church ( in other words, be ready to give their lives for them). Third, the first people who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead and who are given the task of spreading the news are women. Fourth, he protected the woman who as cought committing adultry from being stoned to death which was the law of the time.Fifth, he showed respect and love to the woman of the day who were shunned by society such as Mary Magdalene and the woman at the well.
The Old Testament also includes women in heroic roles such as Rachel, Sarah and Esther. They are protrayed as women of virtue and are shown tremendous respect.
To say that the Bible mistreats women is to ignore all of these aspects of its teachings.
God Bless
-
48
The Bible - inerrant word of God?
by Mr Bean inthe deeper you look into, clearer picture is emerging that god had not any input in these writings at all.
there are many verses, even whole passages which exist in some editions and in some they do not.. he evidently didn't supervised writers or copyists and we have plenty of evidences of that, his name in nt included.. since gospels of peter or thomas are not regarded as valuable and important documentations of jesus' life, only one conclusion comes to my mind.. as a moral guide the bible is an excellent book, written by... men!.
highly recommended!.
-
-
RWC
The Bible is more than merely a moral code, it is more than a book in the same line with Aesop's fables, it is more than a history book. Yet at the same time it is all of these and much more. I believe that it is the word of God as directed by the Holy Spirit to man. Being Catholic, I also believe that God has spoken to man through traditions and that not all that Jesus taught was written down so that traditions that do not contradict the Bible's teachings are also holy.
The Bible cannot be logically compared to the Book of Morman. The Bible was written by many men over thousands of years. It chronicles the histroy of a people from a theological perspective. It's accuracy has been proven through archeology and through the test of time. The Jewish people, who throughout their history have strived to preserve their culture and their past viewed the Old Testament writings as accurate. Joesph Smith wrote the Book of Morman by himself and than pronounced it to the world. Archeology has proven time and time again that it is in error. It was not written at or near the time of the alleged events, instead it was claimed to have been dictated to him by the angel about events that took place thousands of years before.
I agree that before anyone who thinks they are a skeptic and dismisses the Bible out of hand, they should read Lee Stobel's "The Case for Christ". He raises alot of good points and makes even the strongest skeptic pause. He himself was an atheist trying to disprove the existence of Jesus when he began his research. The journey led him to believe.
As for the idea that many years passed before the teachings of Jesus were written down, this cannot be looked at from the perspective of our immediate society. It must be looked at from the perspective of the times. In terms of ancient history, the fact that we have writings about the life and teachings of Jesus a mere thirty years after his death is remarkable. For example, the first bibliography about Mohammud (sp) was written over three hundred years after his death. An equal time span passed before there was a bibliography about Alexander the Great. Jesus walked the earth when most people were illiterate and when history and teaching was passed down orally in a very accurate manner. The reason that people started writing about Jesus so soon is a testament to his life and its profound impact. The thought is that men who witnessed the events or who learned from men who were witnesses wrote down what they knew before they died off.
Also, the New Testament is one of the most throughly preserved ancient wrtings that we have. There are over 5000 pieces of New Testament writings that date back to the first and second century. For ancient writings that is a remarkable number. For example, the earlist version we have of Homer is dated hundreds of years after it was written. Yet people do not questions it is an accurate version of the original.
God Bless