NationStates Jolt Archive

A philosophical question:

A Christian derives his or her morals from the Bible. God says some things are right (love thy neighbour) and others are wrong (thou shall not kill) - and by following these listings you can be a good person.

Most Christians however do not adhere to every single thing in the Bible. The sinful eating of lobster for instance. Or the evil wearing of clothes made of two different fabrics. They consider those commandments to be out of date. Some Christians even go as far as respecting other beliefs, lifestyles and religions.

However, how can they make that judgement ? If *all* their morals are derived from the Bible, how can they dismiss parts of it ? What is their basis to "overrule" Gods will, what is their moral reasoning ?

There are two commandments.

Love God.
Love your neighbour as you love yourself.

Jews and muslims definitely follow the same God so tolerating them is a given. I personally suspect most religions are based on the same god.

A philosophical question:

A Christian derives his or her morals from the Bible. God says some things are right (love thy neighbour) and others are wrong (thou shall not kill) - and by following these listings you can be a good person.

Most Christians however do not adhere to every single thing in the Bible. The sinful eating of lobster for instance. Or the evil wearing of clothes made of two different fabrics. They consider those commandments to be out of date. Some Christians even go as far as respecting other beliefs, lifestyles and religions.

However, how can they make that judgement ? If *all* their morals are derived from the Bible, how can they dismiss parts of it ? What is their basis to "overrule" Gods will, what is their moral reasoning ?

What many Christians ignore is some of the Old Testament laws. The OT laws are separated into three basic categories.

Category 1 are those laws that are of a moral nature (laws against murder, stealing, incest, etc.) and are still followed by all major Christian denominations.

Category 2 is composed of those laws that were specific to the people of Israel. These were laws that were given to tell Israel how its country should be ruled now that they were their own people and needed their own political system, penal system, etc. These laws included things such as separating people who had infectious diseases from society in order to control the spread of disease. I do not believe anyone but the most orthodox of Jews follows these laws as they were clearly meant to provide the framework under which the nation of Israel was to be ruled and therefore are not applicable to other nations in other times.

Category 3 includes those laws of a ritualistic or symbolic nature. These were laws such as those concerning garments made of more than one fabric, different forms of sacrifice for atonement, and the eating of clean or unclean food. Only Jewish people still follow this category of laws although some Christian religions follow some of them (the 7th Day Adventists for example still view certain food as unclean). The reason they are no longer followed is because Christians believe that when Christ died he died for our sins, therefore it is no longer necessary to do all of these rituals to make yourself clean because it is his blood that makes you clean.

The only areas of disagreement among major Christian denominations are between a few items in category 1 and 3. Some denominations disagree on whether eating certain things is a category 3 law or a category 1 law and the same goes for keeping the sabbath and a few other minor issues.

All major Christian denominations believe in following the entire New Testament.

If it feels good, it's a sin.

I don't believe in good or evil, these absolutes don't exist. Not do I believe in sin.

I do believe in right and wrong, though. I believe it is the right thing to do to help others in any way possible. And it is wrong to willfully hurt others. Fairly simple, really.

If it feels good, it's a sin.
It Is A Sin!!!!

Cristianity is the most simple religion. Only two rules. 1. Love God 2. Love everyone else.

Christians act in love and humbleness at all times. They don't insult and put down the beliefs of others. Note: When Paul walked into Athens, he did NOT insult or put down the beliefs of the people. He HONORED those beliefs. Christians don't demand that others submit to their beliefs, Christians submit to the beliefs of others. If your neighbor doesn't eat a certain item, or doesn't do something else, then a Christian would never do that thing in front of them, even if it would be ok for a Christian to do. A Christian doesn't force beliefs on others. Never did Jesus demand belief in order to help others. Things such as demanding others submit to Christian prayers and displays are obviously nonChristian. Jesus said NEVER to pray in public for those prayers would not be answered. Christians would never combine religion and government as Christian does not in any way hurt or control those who believe other things.. Christians submit to the governmental powers, all power comes from God, opposing government powers is opposing God. Christians never gain power by using the fact that they are Christians. Christians would never speak in hate, as Pat Robertson advised killing a world leader. Christians help everyone they meet. Not just send money so they don't have to get their hands dirty. Christians offer help not condemnation, such as is being done in the abortion debate. A Christian would try to find a way to show a mother would be supported for the 18 years the child was growing, not dump the mother right after the child was born. A Christian would not resent paying for programs for the weak, poor, sick, old, minorities, or other disadvantaged.

I could go on to describe the difference between a real Christian and a "Conservative" Christian but this is really getting long.

They shall know the difference simply by using Kant´s categorical imperative: act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law.

If it feels good, it's a sin.
Makes you wonder about those that feel good about asking repentance


:p

I don't believe in good or evil, these absolutes don't exist. Not do I believe in sin.

I do believe in right and wrong, though. I believe it is the right thing to do to help others in any way possible. And it is wrong to willfully hurt others. Fairly simple, really.
Uhhh... what? If good and evil don't exist, how the hell can you come out in the next sentence and say that right and wrong do?

Good = Right and Wrong = Evil. In a moral sense, the terms are utterly synonymous. And if it's right to "help others in any way possible," do you then feel that it's your responsibility to vacuum pack every meal you buy and ship it overseas? After all, it can be done and it would help people. If it's right to "help others in any way possible," why are you sitting at a computer screen right now instead of slogging through toxic sludge in New Orleans?

When you make a sweeping moral proclimation, it's usually a good idea to attach some quanitfiers or else people like me will barge in and start hollering at you like a madman. Charity has it's place, and it's perfectly OK if you prefer to focus on it, but making a statment like this is a bit too broad.

About the only decent thing that came out of the Bible is the Golden Rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Otherwise when it comes to morality you have to remember that one mans morality is another mans obscenity.

One could say "I don't believe in good and evil, but I do believe in good and bad."

But one had better be damn smart to know what that meant.

the only christian group i've ever been intersted in was the ranters

they don't have the bible

not even as a non literal guide

they believe that god (if there is one) is made up of all the souls of people so we know about good and evil instinctivly

All major Christian denominations believe in following the entire New Testament.

That is simply not true. For instance in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Cor.14:34-35 Paul (or more likely someone else writing claiming to be Paul) forbids women to teach or speak in church. Yet today, most major Christian denominations ordain women. In addition, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:2-6 also forbids women braiding their hair and the wearing of jewlery. I don't know any church which still enforces this.

To answer the original question, I turn to the two Great Commandments, 1) Love the Divine above all, and 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. In fact I might go as far as saying they are the same Commandment because I beleive the only way to Love the Divine is to love your neighbor.

(Note: The Hebrew word translated into Love does not allways mean what we think of as love. For the Hebrews, Love was more of an action rather than feeling. To Love someone meant to treat them with respect and dignity, even when you are upset at them)

One could say "I don't believe in good and evil, but I do believe in good and bad."

But one had better be damn smart to know what that meant.
Ahehehe... no. One need not be 'damn smart,' one needs only to be very good at applying incorrect definitions. Good is always right and bad is always evil IN A MORAL CONTEXT.

Prove me wrong. I'd love to hear this.

Lots of Christians don't believe in absolute morals, but see the bible, especially Christ's teachings, as a kind of guide to help them see what is right in what situation. You could never take the whole thing word for word, it is too full of contradictions, so you need to know which bits to apply where.

A philosophical question:

A Christian derives his or her morals from the Bible. God says some things are right (love thy neighbour) and others are wrong (thou shall not kill) - and by following these listings you can be a good person.

Most Christians however do not adhere to every single thing in the Bible. The sinful eating of lobster for instance. Or the evil wearing of clothes made of two different fabrics. They consider those commandments to be out of date. Some Christians even go as far as respecting other beliefs, lifestyles and religions.

However, how can they make that judgement ? If *all* their morals are derived from the Bible, how can they dismiss parts of it ? What is their basis to "overrule" Gods will, what is their moral reasoning ?

The short answer is that we use our practical wisdom to determine which laws are still applicable (for instance, reason tends to find no real reason not to wear cotton/polyester shirts, and good reasons to do so: they are economical, comfortable, and effective at retaining heat), and how best to follow those rules that still are applicable.

That is simply not true. For instance in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Cor.14:34-35 Paul (or more likely someone else writing claiming to be Paul) forbids women to teach or speak in church. Yet today, most major Christian denominations ordain women. In addition, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:2-6 also forbids women braiding their hair and the wearing of jewlery. I don't know any church which still enforces this.
Actually in 1 Timothy 2 Paul was writing to Timothy who was leading the Ephesian church. In the past women were not allowed to study at all. He was giving them a new opertunity by making it possible for them to study. In context of the time he was worried that the women who were new to the teachings of the church were easily suseptable to false teachings and by putting them in charge before they were fully mature they were a danger to the church. (which was already having problems with people teaching false doctrine.) If you read the whole book of 1 Timothy you will see that Paul was writing to a church in trouble. As for the braids and jewelry, many of the women were off track trying to use thier beauty to gain respect rather than becoming more like Christ. This is still a concern, women should dress modestly.

As for 1 Cor 14:34-35 again it is taken out of context. In 1 Cor. 11:5 it is clear that women are involved in worship services. In Corinthian culture women were not allowed to confront men in public. Some women were asking questions in church that could easily be answered at home. This was causing a rift in the church. In verse 35 he states that they should wait until at home to ask these questions.
The purpose of Paul's statements were to promote unity in the church, not to state a women's role. These were very specific issues directed at these specific people, not a mandate.

It really helps if when you are studying the Bible to go back and check the history and the who what when where why to make sure everything is in context. Pulling a verse out without proper study had frightening consequences.

Ah man, I thought this was going to be a joke thread..

Ah man, I thought this was going to be a joke thread..

Me too :headbang:

About the only decent thing that came out of the Bible is the Golden Rule.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Otherwise when it comes to morality you have to remember that one mans morality is another mans obscenity.

That's actually quite true. For example, neoconservative morality is highly prejudist, and I find it infuriatingly offensive.

That's actually quite true. For example, neoconservative morality is highly prejudist, and I find it infuriatingly offensive.

Be offended, as a Christian I can honestly say that I could care less. Then again, I'm not very good at "loving my neighbor".

Sidenote: The actual meaning is "Thou shall not MURDER", not thou shall not kill, common misconception.

This raises an interesting question that I wonder if any neocon bashers can answer without using google: Who were the first neocons and where did they come from? What was their [initial] political platform and when did they get started?

Oh, and it's 'prejudiced,' by the way.

That is simply not true. For instance in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Cor.14:34-35 Paul (or more likely someone else writing claiming to be Paul) forbids women to teach or speak in church. Yet today, most major Christian denominations ordain women. In addition, 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Peter 3:2-6 also forbids women braiding their hair and the wearing of jewlery. I don't know any church which still enforces this. Ahem… Ireland…
There is a widespread belief that those letters were for the Corinthian ladies only. Therefore they are not relevant now. Of course, I could be totally wrong.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; a great rule. Of course, in my book this wouldn't leave out the possibility of war or assassination, because they may be helping a greater number of people (doing to the greater number what I'd like). But I'm waffling.

Be offended, as a Christian I can honestly say that I could care less. Then again, I'm not very good at "loving my neighbor".

Sidenote: The actual meaning is "Thou shall not MURDER", not thou shall not kill, common misconception. Try each day. If you're a convert, remember that you once thought like they did. Don't judge, be peaceful, stop making me sound like the Dalai Lama!

Lots of Christians don't believe in absolute morals, but see the bible, especially Christ's teachings, as a kind of guide to help them see what is right in what situation. You could never take the whole thing word for word, it is too full of contradictions, so you need to know which bits to apply where.

The problem is that many don't know. Jesus beleived in peace right? And yet- in his name- the crusades, the pograms, the inquisition, etc. occurred killing and torturing millions of Jews and exiling millions more. Jesus was Jewish. Christians beleive that he will come back, which means that, had he come back then, in his own name they would have killed him too. Even without that, these are his own people they were killing. I think- had he come back prior to Pope John Paul II making anti-semetism a sin- he would have been horrified at the state of the world. And I don't even want to talk about the holocaust.

Ahehehe... no. One need not be 'damn smart,' one needs only to be very good at applying incorrect definitions. Good is always right and bad is always evil IN A MORAL CONTEXT.

Prove me wrong. I'd love to hear this.

Not in all moral systems:

It is looking at the will behind the construction of a moral system that one can split these two.

Where in the archaic moralities good meant "strong, proud, healthy" and bad meant "weak, humble insignificant."

Instead, most religious moralities were created in defense of the weak against the above stated morality. Strength and power were considered scary and evil, whilst humility, weakness, and overall altruism and ascetcism were considered "good."

There is a difference between the emotions evoked when a nobleman calls a peasant "bad," and when a peasent calls a nobleman "evil."

You assumed that morality only consists of its modern followers.

Actually in 1 Timothy 2 Paul was writing to Timothy who was leading the Ephesian church. In the past women were not allowed to study at all. He was giving them a new opertunity by making it possible for them to study.

I have read through the chapter many times, where does Paul give women the opportunity to study?

In context of the time he was worried that the women who were new to the teachings of the church were easily suseptable to false teachings and by putting them in charge before they were fully mature they were a danger to the church. (which was already having problems with people teaching false doctrine.)

This might be true, but that is not the reasons stated by Paul: 1 Timothy 2:13-15 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

It makes it very clear, women shall be saved in childbearing, it is not their place to teach.

If you read the whole book of 1 Timothy you will see that Paul was writing to a church in trouble. As for the braids and jewelry, many of the women were off track trying to use thier beauty to gain respect rather than becoming more like Christ. This is still a concern, women should dress modestly.

I agree but define modestly. Does modestly consist of no braids as it did in Paul's time. My point is the times have changed, and I don't see any footnotes in the Bible saying this rule is for the time being, this rule is for all time.

As for 1 Cor 14:34-35 again it is taken out of context. In 1 Cor. 11:5 it is clear that women are involved in worship services. In Corinthian culture women were not allowed to confront men in public. Some women were asking questions in church that could easily be answered at home. This was causing a rift in the church. In verse 35 he states that they should wait until at home to ask these questions.

I agree that 1 Cor. 11:5 makes it clear that women should take place in the service, however 1 Cor 14:34-35 makes it very clear that women are to be silent period. This was probably written by someone else to correct what Paul had said in Cor 11:5.

All this is besides the point as I said most Christians do not follow the New Testimant word for word. In my experience is many Christians are eager to pull the 6 clobber verses against homosexuality out of Leviticus and Corinthians, Timothy and Romans (just as out of context usually) but don't acknowlege that these too may be time and place specific (not to mention the result of bad translation)

Try each day. If you're a convert, remember that you once thought like they did. Don't judge, be peaceful, stop making me sound like the Dalai Lama!

Born and raised Christian, I'm just not very tolerant of morons, incompetents, the ACLU(curse you and your gun-controlling ways...), the Federal Gvernment, bad drivers, you get the idea here? People do not deserve anything from me but what they earn, and most have a distinct tendency to earn my scorn more often than not.

This raises an interesting question that I wonder if any neocon bashers can answer without using google: Who were the first neocons and where did they come from? What was their [initial] political platform and when did they get started?

Oh, and it's 'prejudiced,' by the way.


First of all, thanks, I'm a horrible speller.

Second of all, neoconservatism never started out with a platform; they are not a political party (Although, sadly, they've hijacked waht was once a very good one.). Neoconservatism is a moralistic, selfish, fiscally out-of-control, and, above all, highly currupted form of conservatism. The reason I said that (It may have sounded harsh, but I meant all of those words in their actual definitions (not as insults).) is because of the following:

moralistic: They base their politics on their personal (and usually deeply religious) morals.
selfish: They base their policies on their own personal gain (eg. oil drilling in Alaska, when it won't help the economy, but will mutilate one of the most pristine and delicate environments in the world or starting a war to take revenge on your father's enemy and attempted killer).
fiscally-out-of-control: Look how mush the Iraq war is costing us. We are now spending money at a rate of about $360,000,000,000 (around three-hundred and sixty billion dollars) more than we are making- per year. And yet he continues with the tax cuts. What is it that $100 can bring a person that decent education for their children cannot?
highly currupted: It is always based upon the politician in charge; the good of the country and the good of the world are no where in the equation. This is the land of the free, and yet, we have never before lost so much freedom.

Greetings one and all.
The idea of deriving morality from the Bible without the use of Old Testament Laws still makes perfect sense in our modern world. Where does one find morality in the Bible? Through the teachings of the Messiah, the Christ Jesus. When Jesus entered the world he brought with him the new covenent of salvation and morality. This has been repeated often, but I wish to reiterate the idea of Love of Neighbor and Love of God as stated in the New Testament as the greatest of the commandments (not in that order of course!).
Now a more radical idea. Sometimes a moral decision is difficult to decide upon. At the end of Romans 14 a new idea is presented for morality. The idea is that if something is wrong to you, in the case of verse 23 eating a particular food, then eating it would be incorrect and sinful. So thus I would say that in times of question the answer is simple: Do what you think is right and faithful when in doubt.
- Alexander Wesbein
Radical Christian, Tyslan

The idea of deriving morality from the Bible without the use of Old Testament Laws still makes perfect sense in our modern world.


Does it? What about the Ten Commandments? Where would we be without those?

(Note: The Hebrew word translated into Love does not allways mean what we think of as love. For the Hebrews, Love was more of an action rather than feeling. To Love someone meant to treat them with respect and dignity, even when you are upset at them)


And this would be the true meaning for any and all. The greatest commandment of all is "Love God" with the second being "love thy neighbor as you love thyself". Again, reiterating what has been said many times, the best way we can show our respect (or LOVE) for God/Allah/God-Goddess/whatever you are naming what is up there is to show the same respect and consideration for others in the world today.
I have heard a news report that says Bush is going to declare Friday a national day of prayer. I am saying now to one and all, no matter what your religion or non-religion join with the rest of the country and pray for the peace and tranquillity that the world desperately needs. No matter how you pray in whatever way PRAY PRAY PRAY for this world to not blow up to smitheriens as it is threatening to do. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

And this would be the true meaning for any and all. The greatest commandment of all is "Love God" with the second being "love thy neighbor as you love thyself". Again, reiterating what has been said many times, the best way we can show our respect (or LOVE) for God/Allah/God-Goddess/whatever you are naming what is up there is to show the same respect and consideration for others in the world today.
I have heard a news report that says Bush is going to declare Friday a national day of prayer. I am saying now to one and all, no matter what your religion or non-religion join with the rest of the country and pray for the peace and tranquillity that the world desperately needs. No matter how you pray in whatever way PRAY PRAY PRAY for this world to not blow up to smitheriens as it is threatening to do. :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: Um… happy person.

It has been threatening to do that, hasn't it? Well, I think, if Bush wants to pray and ask people to pray with him, then that is fine, but if he is actually going to declare "a national day of prayer," then he is very clearly crossing the line between church and state. What do you think?

if he is actually going to declare "a national day of prayer," then he is very clearly crossing the line between church and state. What do you think?

Correction: I didn't mean crossing the line, I meant ignoring it and thus combining church and state (which is unconstitutional).

Somebody say something! :headbang:

*I hate quiet...*

Correction: I didn't mean crossing the line, I meant ignoring it and thus combining church and state (which is unconstitutional).


Yep. He seems to ignor a lot! :headbang:
And so it goes

He certainly does. Have you ever before heard a president quote G-d? No less- from a personal conversation with G-d?

I have read through the chapter many times, where does Paul give women the opportunity to study?



This might be true, but that is not the reasons stated by Paul: 1 Timothy 2:13-15 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

It makes it very clear, women shall be saved in childbearing, it is not their place to teach.



I agree but define modestly. Does modestly consist of no braids as it did in Paul's time. My point is the times have changed, and I don't see any footnotes in the Bible saying this rule is for the time being, this rule is for all time.



I agree that 1 Cor. 11:5 makes it clear that women should take place in the service, however 1 Cor 14:34-35 makes it very clear that women are to be silent period. This was probably written by someone else to correct what Paul had said in Cor 11:5.

All this is besides the point as I said most Christians do not follow the New Testimant word for word. In my experience is many Christians are eager to pull the 6 clobber verses against homosexuality out of Leviticus and Corinthians, Timothy and Romans (just as out of context usually) but don't acknowlege that these too may be time and place specific (not to mention the result of bad translation)

I would ague that nobody follows the Bible word for word or there would be no such thing as sin. Reading one chapter isn't going to give you real understanding of the Bible. You have to research the history to really find out the context of the things being said and research the original languages to understand why things were translated the way they were and to remove any bias that translators may have put in. Paul wrote many of the books in the New Testament and his general theme is to serve God. He is trying to promote unity in the body of Christ, somethings he says are for everyone to hear and some deal with specific situations in the Church that he is writing to. Without a proper basis in history it is hard to understand what was meant for whom. I do agree that fashon trends change, but the basic message of dressing modestly and not disturbing church are still very important.

Does it? What about the Ten Commandments? Where would we be without those?

Lets see:

Commandment 1) You shall have no other gods besides Me.

Commandment 2)You shall not make any graven immages.

The First Ammendmant that allows us to worship however and whatever we want directly contradicts the first 2

Commandment 3) You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain

This actually has nothing with proffanity. The way ancient Hebrews would do a contract was that they would bargain until they reached an agreement. So many acres for so many cows. And then when they had reached a verbal agreement they would clasp each other's hands and swear in the name of the Lord that they would be true to the bargain that they had just struck. And if they did not obey that bargain they had taken the name of the Lord in vain. Our court systems and contract law have pretty much made this obsolete.

Commandment 4) Remember the Sabath Day and keep it Holy.

Well there is no laws pertaining to this, and almost every group besides the Jews and Seventh Day Adventists get the day wrong anyway.

Commandment 5) Honor thy Father and Mother.

Good idea but, again, no laws to this effect. Besides, what if you have abusive parrents? Should you still honor them?

Commandment 6) You Shall not commit murder

Hey we got one that's actually on the law books. Of couse just about every other religion has this one too.

Commandment 7) You Shall not commit adulty

Another great idea, but no laws enforcing this.

Commandment 8) You shall not steal

See 6

Commandment 9) You shall not bear false witness

Another commandment we have enforced with purgery laws. Again, most of the other religions agree on this too.

Commandment 10) You shall not covet... (a whole bunch of stuff including wives)

Not enforced and became out of date when we started considering women people.

So in conclusion, where would we be without the 10 Commandments? Pretty much where we are now.

The way I've always read it is that, as a follower of Jesus, I am not constrained by the old rules (Thou shalt not), but rather by the principle: "Live to love and serve the Lord." When you look at it this way, it becomes a lot easier. The preceding principle is often contracted to "What Would Jesus Do?", or WWJD. When you live by this, all I need to do is ask myself "Is this the sort of thing Jesus would have done or not?"

Am I making sense?

For the record, I'd classify myself as a non-fundamentalist, relatively non-demoniational Christian

I would ague that nobody follows the Bible word for word or there would be no such thing as sin. Reading one chapter isn't going to give you real understanding of the Bible. You have to research the history to really find out the context of the things being said and research the original languages to understand why things were translated the way they were and to remove any bias that translators may have put in. Paul wrote many of the books in the New Testament and his general theme is to serve God. He is trying to promote unity in the body of Christ, somethings he says are for everyone to hear and some deal with specific situations in the Church that he is writing to. Without a proper basis in history it is hard to understand what was meant for whom. I do agree that fashon trends change, but the basic message of dressing modestly and not disturbing church are still very important.

I have done all I have time for, but my research has probably concentrated differently from you and thus we will have different ideas. We will probably have to agree to disagree, but I maintain my point that specific requirements of the NT are no longer enforced.

Lets see:

Commandment 1) You shall have no other gods besides Me.

Commandment 2)You shall not make any graven immages.

The First Ammendmant that allows us to worship however and whatever we want directly contradicts the first 2

I would view this as a Christians personal choice to not excercise his or her right under the First Amendment, and to view that others are making a spiritual failure when they do not follow this.

Commandment 3) You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain

This actually has nothing with proffanity. The way ancient Hebrews would do a contract was that they would bargain until they reached an agreement. So many acres for so many cows. And then when they had reached a verbal agreement they would clasp each other's hands and swear in the name of the Lord that they would be true to the bargain that they had just struck. And if they did not obey that bargain they had taken the name of the Lord in vain. Our course systems and contract law have pretty much made this obsolete.

Agreed. However, given the current trend in profanity, I think it does apply there.

Commandment 4) Remember the Sabath Day and keep it Holy.

Well there is no laws pertaining to this, and almost every group besides the Jews and Seventh Day Adventists get the day wrong anyway.

My view would be that there is a law pertaining to this, and you just quoted it. It's a spiritual law.
About the day, I view that as a day consistently set apart for a meeting with other Christians.

Commandment 5) Honor thy Father and Mother.

Good idea but, again, no laws to this effect. Besides, what if you have abusive parrents? Should you still honor them?

In a nutshell, yes. You may not like their decisions, you may think they were wrong, but, if all else fails, you should honor them because they brought you into the world, and because God says so.

Commandment 6) You Shall not commit murder

Hey we got one that's actually on the law books. Of couse just about every other religion has this one too.

Very true, because most religions have a fairly solid view of morality, even if I do think they are wrong.

Commandment 7) You Shall not commit adulty

Another great idea, but no laws enforcing this.

For a Christian, the fact that it is a spiritual law laid down by the Lord should do it.

Commandment 8) You shall not steal

See 6

See my reply to 6.

Commandment 9) You shall not bear false witness

Another commandment we have enforced with purgery laws. Again, most of the other religions agree on this too.

See reply to 6.

Commandment 10) You shall not covet... (a whole bunch of stuff including wives)

Not enforced and became out of date when we started considering women people.

See 7. Also, when we started considering women people, we can simply add "Do not covet your neighbour's husband." to the list, and keep it current. Or else change it to spouse not wife.

So in conclusion, where would we be without the 10 Commandments? Pretty much where we are now.

Sort of. I don't think so however.

I have done all I have time for, but my research has probably concentrated differently from you and thus we will have different ideas. We will probably have to agree to disagree, but I maintain my point that specific requirements of the NT are no longer enforced.
Okay, I can agree to disagree. I do realize that some specific requirements of the New Testament are no longer enforced my point is that some of them weren't really meant to be for everyone anyway or if they were in the more general realm.

To whatever-it-was-Universalists:

I actually interpret the line "honor thy father and mother" as, basically, honor, respect, and treat well your family. Basically, if a parent is being abusive, they are violating this.

As for other religions having these laws: They very well may, but the Ten Commandments were the first to not frown upon these (or ignore them entirely) but actually enforce them. Also, many of those are based upon them or the laws of cultures that have them (The world's two largest religions (Christianity and Islam) are all based on Judaism.).

Also, I was mainly refrencing things like murder, theft, etc.

He certainly does. Have you ever before heard a president quote G-d? No less- from a personal conversation with G-d?


LOL
NO I haven't and it seems really strange that "God" would only talk to one president and not any other world leader past or present!!!
OH Well!
Back to work I go now. (gotta give Uncie Sammie them taxes he likes so much!) Have a great day ya'all!

Whether or not good and bad actually exist and despite all of the religious implications, the Bible (and other so-called holy texts) have laid the frame-work for all of humanity’s moral system. Many people (including Christians, but others as well) stick to commandments such as “thou shall not kill” because as the influence of the Bible has grown, people have ALWAYS valued that particular rule. Governments have adopted the commandment as a law, in fact, and most cultures have accepted it as well, even if they don’t believe in a Christian God. I would imagine, however, that things such as “not eating lobster” were never really an issue, so they died out. And rightfully so.

Also:

if he is actually going to declare "a national day of prayer," then he is very clearly crossing the line between church and state. What do you think?

I don't think that a national day of prayer would cross the line at all. No one can force anyone to believe in anything, or to actually pray. I think what Dubya was probably asking for was a day of rememberance where we pray for all of those who we have lost due to terrorism, or whatever. Just to put this in perspective, though, I am not at all religious, or Christian--completely atheist, in fact. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if he wants to create a national day of prayer.

A Dose Of Reality has given me a very good idea: Lunch. I like lunch. Lunch is good. I'm going to go have some. Otherwise, I'll probobly go mad, turn into a raving lunatic, and eventually end up looking like this: :gundge:

A Dose Of Reality has given me a very good idea: Lunch. I like lunch. Lunch is good. I'm going to go have some. Otherwise, I'll probobly go mad, turn into a raving lunatic, and eventually end up looking like this: :gundge:


As long as those are good spells your sending, who cares? :p

[QUOTE=Lord Henry Wotton]I think what Dubya was probably asking for was a day of rememberance where we pray for all of those who we have lost due to terrorism, or whatever. QUOTE]


So we now have Dubya's spokesperson here, why didn't he just say that?

O thats right, he is a politician and they can NEVER say exactly what they mean with out a least a little bit of double speak involved!! :headbang:
(and this is why I went against my parents and became a Warehouse Manager instead of a politician! Can't lie like that for the life of me!!)

Actually one last thing: First of all, what's to say anything about a Christian G-d? G-d is G-d. He's basically the same for most religions. For example, I don't beleive in a Christian G-d, because I'm Jewish. But I do beleive in G-d. However, He's the same G-d, and thus, I suggest we scrap saying that He belongs to any particular religion, considering that, basically, He invented them anyway.

Also, as for the lobster, that actually had a very good reason. Lobsters are bottom-feeders. The stuff that they're eating at the bottom is, to put it flatly, the same stuff that all the other fish have dropped out of their own bottoms. As such, scince, in that day, they did not know how to make the lobster clean and safe, it was a health risk (and still is in some countries). As for the pork, they did not know in that day how to properly sanitize it, and so those who ate prok were at extremely high risk of getting Trigganosses (or however its spelled). At the time, they had no cure, and so people who ate pork had a nasty little habbit of dropping dead. As such, both foods were banned for safety reasons. Note: They still don't have Health Departments in third-world countries, so don't eath those there unless you want to cut your trip extremely short.

Must dash. According to the picture in the bottom of this thread, it appears I am being assassinated. Ought the be at least properly fed first, so I really must go. :sniper: (Well, what do you know, I was right.)

A philosophical question:

A Christian derives his or her morals from the Bible.

Here is your problem. Only a fundamentalist Christian derives his or her morals strictly from the Bible. Those of us who believe in a personal relationship with God derive our morals from God.

The Bible is a good guideline, as it was written by those inspired by God, or who believed themselves to be inspired by God. However, even inspiration does not make a person infallible. Inspiration is still interpreted through fallible human understanding. Thus, taking the word of someone else without first examining one's own relationship with God is having faith in that person, not in God. If something that another has said conflicts with guidance from God, then one can conclude that it was wrong.

Lots of Christians don't believe in absolute morals, but see the bible, especially Christ's teachings, as a kind of guide to help them see what is right in what situation. You could never take the whole thing word for word, it is too full of contradictions, so you need to know which bits to apply where.

name one
:mp5:
evil :mp5: :sniper:
:mp5:

name one
:mp5:
evil :mp5: :sniper:
:mp5: Well there are many that people think are contradictions but actually aren't, on closer analysis. There are also things that take a lot of thought to work out. Excessive use of shooty smileys is not an indicator of great thought, so you shouldn't have asked.

Also, as for the lobster, that actually had a very good reason. Lobsters are bottom-feeders. The stuff that they're eating at the bottom is, to put it flatly, the same stuff that all the other fish have dropped out of their own bottoms. As such, scince, in that day, they did not know how to make the lobster clean and safe, it was a health risk (and still is in some countries). As for the pork, they did not know in that day how to properly sanitize it, and so those who ate prok were at extremely high risk of getting Trigganosses (or however its spelled). At the time, they had no cure, and so people who ate pork had a nasty little habbit of dropping dead. As such, both foods were banned for safety reasons. Note: They still don't have Health Departments in third-world countries, so don't eath those there unless you want to cut your trip extremely short.
The Jewish people at the time of the OT were semi-literate,bedouin, nomads. God needed a way to communicate to them on a daily basis how they were to live their lives. So, since they all had to eat, he used food as that means of communication. As stated above, shell fish live in the dirt and mud and refuse of the sea. The people were to live lives that looked above at the clean things in life. Cattle, sheep, goats, etc. live in herds and protect each other from the dangers around them. Pigs, if given a choice, live mostly to themselves. A sow has to protect her young on their own. Believers are to protect and help each other. Chickens can be eaten because they live naturally on seeds. Hawks cannot be eaten because they live on the pain and death of others. Obvious lesson. I could go on, but each of the eating restrictions has a lesson for God's people each time they eat. The problem became that the rules were remembered but the lessons weren't reviewed at each meal. It was the lesson that God saw as important--Not the rule.