Page 22 of 29 FirstFirst ... 121718192021222324252627 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 440 of 566
  1. #421  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    ...Or do you consider shopping on Sundays a deadly sin leading to eternal damnation?[
    The President's ability to veto has a sabbatical clause in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Should adultery be a crime according to you?
    It has been at times in our history. And at least to the extent that a contractual agreement has been violated, it still should be. And, you will see in divorce proceedings that when infidelity is involved, that does not bode well for the violator. These are the principles we live by.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    ...I don't know which Bible you read, but the ones I know don't state that Hindus, Buddhists or Moslems will be treated equally before the god of the Christians when the time comes. Actually, all those who do not believe in Jesus Christ will suffer eternal damnation and will be tortured in hell.[
    These two statements are contradictory. First you say they won't be treated equally. Then you go on to say that all that are in the same category will have the same outcome. That is equality. Likewise, all have opportunity to avoid said outcome. That is equality.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Where did you say the link to the constitution is?
    The constitution does the same thing. All have the same rights. All violators face the same justice system. All found guilty face the same rules of retribution.

    Equality does not mean every one will have the same experience. It means everyone will be subject to the same system. The respective experience of each is a function of his/her level of adherence to the governing principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The "principle of equality" in the Bible is just a misunderstanding. What is meant there is that not only Jews can become Christian by believing that Jesus is the Messiah and go to heaven, but that Greeks, Romans, etc. have equal opportunities of getting there. Jesus was not very specific about this, so the question was discussed later in the Bible (Galatians, I think).
    There is also equality in the joint rule of Man (male and female) over the earth. There is also equality in the admonition to be subject one to another; to bear one another's burdens; in that the soul that sins will die; in that all have sinned.....
  2. #422  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The "principle of equality" in the Bible is just a misunderstanding. What is meant there is that not only Jews can become Christian by believing that Jesus is the Messiah and go to heaven, but that Greeks, Romans, etc. have equal opportunities of getting there. Jesus was not very specific about this, so the question was discussed later in the Bible (Galatians, I think).
    Christians are not unique in claiming a divine preference. The Twelve Tribes were the first "Chosen People."
  3. #423  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    There is also equality in the joint rule of Man (male and female) over the earth.
    Equality of man and women? Which Bible do you read?

    1 Peter 3:1:
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands...

    Ephesians 5:22-23
    22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
    23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

    Genesis 3:16:
    16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4. #424  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Christians are not unique in claiming a divine preference. The Twelve Tribes were the first "Chosen People."
    First and only.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  5. #425  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    First and only.
    They may be. However, my point is that most religions claim devine preference. The issue is the claim, not its validity.
  6. #426  
    Your use of straw man arguments is getting tiring.
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    It is true that the Declaration of Independence states that unalienable rights are given by a creator. However, this idea brought forward by the founding fathers is based on the principles of the Age of Enlightenment, not based on Christian ideas. Big difference. The founding fathers stating that a creator endowed rights does not automatically make the whole story a Christian idea.
    Straw man! No one is saying that "the whole story is a Christian idea." What I am saying is that in America, rights are unalienable because the are granted by God, not man - nothing more.
    The whole idea of the Ten Commandments as the basis of the legal system was also discussed earlier on TC. It is an idea often repeated, but the repetition does not make it less false. Have a look at the Commandments and ask yourself which of those commandments have made it into your legal system. Two or three out of ten: Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie (illegal only under certain circumstances). I bet most of the rest you yourself would consider total nonsense in any legal system. Or do you consider shopping on Sundays a deadly sin leading to eternal damnation? Should adultery be a crime according to you? Is making images of god illegal in the US?
    Straw man! When a root grows into a plant, some branches make it and others do not. That doesn't change the nature of the root. I'm not saying the entire legal system is based on Biblical principle. Dealing with the denial of life and property are two of the biggest tasks of our legal system. And if I must deal with your straw-man, remember that adultery indeed used to be illegal in most if not all states, as was sodomy and many other biblically defined "crimes". That they are no longer crimes doesn't change the fact of the bible's influence on our earlier laws. Also, you might have noticed that lots of places are closed on Sundays, including the courts. The Constitution does state, "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)...". Why do you suppose Sundays were excepted? Well, actually I think I know what you suppose: simple tradition. Obviously, the tradition had to come from somewhere.
    I don't know which Bible you read, but the ones I know don't state that Hindus, Buddhists or Moslems will be treated equally before the god of the Christians when the time comes. Actually, all those who do not believe in Jesus Christ will suffer eternal damnation and will be tortured in hell. Where did you say the link to the constitution is?

    The "principle of equality" in the Bible is just a misunderstanding. What is meant there is that not only Jews can become Christian by believing that Jesus is the Messiah and go to heaven, but that Greeks, Romans, etc. have equal opportunities of getting there. Jesus was not very specific about this, so the question was discussed later in the Bible (Galatians, I think).
    My mistake - what I meant was not that all humans are equal before God, but that all believers are equal before God. I assumed that biblically "all" in this context would be understood as "all believers". That doesn't change my point, however, that the principle of equality is a secular application of this biblical principle.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  7. #427  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The constitution does the same thing. All have the same rights. All violators face the same justice system. All found guilty face the same rules of retribution.
    The main point in the constitution is that everybody has the same legal and political rights. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything close to that. The Bible is ok with holding slaves etc. (Old Testament). Did Jesus ever say that holding slaves was wrong? That eveybody should have the same political rights? Please, enlighten me...

    What the bible says is that also Greeks, Gentiles, and others can become Christians. That in the end everybody will be treated the same, those who believe in Jesus and act accordingly have the chance of going to heaven, those who don't go to hell (apparently also those living in Mongolia who have never heard of Jesus all their life. Bad luck). That's not even close to what the constitution means by equality, namely having the same political rights, regardless of whether your father was a king, a knight, or just a simple subject.

    The Bible is ok with having kings and slaves, the constitution is not (well, maybe slaves are ok, but that's a different story, isn't it?).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #428  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The main point in the constitution is that everybody has the same legal and political rights. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything close to that. The Bible is ok with holding slaves etc. (Old Testament). Did Jesus ever say that holding slaves was wrong? That eveybody should have the same political rights? Please, enlighten me...

    What the bible says is that also Greeks, Gentiles, and others can become Christians. That in the end everybody will be treated the same, those who believe in Jesus and act accordingly have the chance of going to heaven, those who don't go to hell (apparently also those living in Mongolia who have never heard of Jesus all their life. Bad luck). That's not even close to what the constitution means by equality, namely having the same political rights, regardless of whether your father was a king, a knight, or just a simple subject.

    The Bible is ok with having kings and slaves, the constitution is not (well, maybe slaves are ok, but that's a different story, isn't it?).
    Again with the straw man!

    No one is saying that the specific clauses and words contained within the Constitution are lifted from the Bible. The larger ideas outlined by Shopharim are what is being claimed:
    Quote Originally Posted by Shopharim
    The constitution does the same thing. All have the same rights. All violators face the same justice system. All found guilty face the same rules of retribution.

    Equality does not mean every one will have the same experience. It means everyone will be subject to the same system. The respective experience of each is a function of his/her level of adherence to the governing principles.
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  9. #429  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    No one is saying that the specific clauses and words contained within the Constitution are lifted from the Bible.
    Maybe you don't, but others did:
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Interesting paradox you introduce, because a concentrated effort is made to suggest that this nation is NOT founded on christian principles.
    Quote Originally Posted by jmill72x
    This country was founded on Christian ideals, not Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim ideals. Everyone who lives here understands that.
    I only asked which those principles are, and where in the Bilbe they are advocated, assuming that something as fundamental as a Christian principle must be from the Bible.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #430  
    The issue of slavery is an interesting one... the bible is full of references to slavery, but nowhere does it say holding slaves is bad, or am I mistaken?
    http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksea...&qs_version=31
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  11. #431  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Equality of man and women? Which Bible do you read?

    1 Peter 3:1:
    Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands...

    Ephesians 5:22-23
    22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
    23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

    Genesis 3:16:
    16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
    Judging from the text you quoted, we read the same Bible.

    It may be, though, that you have not spent as much time reading parts that show that the one who is "ruler" is called to lay down his life for the one in "subjection"

    John 15:13-14
    I Peter 2:21-25
    Ephesians 5:21, 25-31
    Romans 5:7-8
    Matthew 20:27-28

    When husbands love "like Christ loved the church," wives find no inferiority in being in subjection. Inequality only erupts when those in "rule" neglect their responsiblity of self-sacrifice for their "subjects."

    Subjection is not inherently unequal.

    It's like the US government. The branches are equal. They each have different functions. Under any given circumstance, though, one may be "in subjection" to the other. In the Bible we call it being subject one to another. In the government, we call it "checks and balances."
    Last edited by shopharim; 10/03/2005 at 12:27 PM.
  12. #432  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The issue of slavery is an interesting one... the bible is full of references to slavery, but nowhere does it say holding slaves is bad, or am I mistaken?
    http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksea...&qs_version=31
    Again, the distinction that needs to be raised is whether we are talking chattle slavery (i.e. a human is the property of another human) or indentured service (as was practiced during biblical time).

    A further distinction is the implementation of Jubilee, which the Bible advocates, where in even those in servitude (not chattle slavery) are to be released, and property held in lien was to be restored.
    Last edited by shopharim; 10/03/2005 at 12:29 PM.
  13. #433  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Maybe you don't, but others did:I only asked which those principles are, and where in the Bilbe they are advocated, assuming that something as fundamental as a Christian principle must be from the Bible.
    Reference to "principles" and "ideals" is far from a claim that "specific clauses and words contained within the Constitution are lifted from the Bible."
  14. #434  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The issue of slavery is an interesting one... the bible is full of references to slavery, but nowhere does it say holding slaves is bad, or am I mistaken?
    http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksea...&qs_version=31
    Understand your terms first... a "slave" or "slavery" in biblical times was not the same as what we typically think of (eighteenth century, racial slavery). This has long been understood. The great abolutionist movements of the 1700 & 1800's were primarily Christian organizations. Zealous Quakers nearly torpedoed the adoption of the US Constitution over the slavery issue.

    Presumably their abolutionist ideals came from somewhere???
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...
  15. #435  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Judging from the text you quoted, we read the same Bible.

    It may be, though, that you have not spent as much time reading parts that show that the one who is "ruler" is called to lay down his life for the one in "subjection"

    John 15:13-14
    I Peter 2:21-25
    Ephesians 5:21, 25-31
    Romans 5:7-8
    Matthew 20:27-28

    When husbands love "like Christ loved the church," wives find no inferiority in being in subjection. Inequality only erupts when those in "rule" neglect their responsiblity of self-sacrifice for their "subjects."

    Subjection is not inherently unequal.

    It's like the US government. The branches are equal. They each have different functions. Under any given circumstance, though, one may be "in subjection" to the other. In the Bible we call it being subject one to another. In the government, we call it "checks and balances."
    Very well stated. My wife and I are big into Eph 5:21.

    Let's not forget that our government also follows this example regarding our citizens. The President and Congress "rule" over our country but are in complete submission (you know what I mean) to their electorate at least every couple of years if not more frequently.

    Wait! Would that be a Christian principle brought into the Constitution??? Couldn't be if "someone" else thinks like that, too, eh?
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  16. #436  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Again, the distinction that needs to be raised is whether we are talking chattle slavery (i.e. a human is the property of another human) or indentured service (as was practiced during biblical time).
    The Bible does not leave any doubt about slavery in the sense of "human is the property of another human":

    Leviticus 25:44
    Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

    Leviticus 25:45
    Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

    Methinks sometimes you see your Bible in an overly positive light. Isn't the view of some people that the Bible is literally true a bit frightening for you, too?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  17. #437  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Subjection is not inherently unequal.
    Your defence of the Bible is brave, but it leads you to rather adventurous claims...

    subject:
    to bring under control or dominion : SUBJUGATE b : to make (as oneself) amenable to the discipline and control of a superior
    to cause or force to undergo or endure (something unpleasant, inconvenient, or trying).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  18. #438  
    Quote Originally Posted by phurth
    Understand your terms first... a "slave" or "slavery" in biblical times was not the same as what we typically think of (eighteenth century, racial slavery). This has long been understood. The great abolutionist movements of the 1700 & 1800's were primarily Christian organizations. Zealous Quakers nearly torpedoed the adoption of the US Constitution over the slavery issue.

    Presumably their abolutionist ideals came from somewhere???
    I am not familiar with these movements. Maybe it was because the slaves were not considered heathens any more?
    Leviticus 25:44
    Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #439  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Your defence of the Bible is brave, but it leads you to rather adventurous claims...

    subject:
    to bring under control or dominion : SUBJUGATE b : to make (as oneself) amenable to the discipline and control of a superior
    to cause or force to undergo or endure (something unpleasant, inconvenient, or trying).
    Perhaps a different relationship will provide better insight:

    I am subject to the Supervisor assigned by my employer. As individuals, I am an equal to my supervisor. As it relates to carrying-out the business of our employer, though, my supervisor has the rule. I operate subject to his direction. There are times when that scenario proves to be unpleasant, inconvenient and trying to me. At no time, though, is our equality ever in doubt. And, even if I feel unequalt, both my employer and the governing authorities in our jurisdiction have established laws to prevent or punish abuses of authority.

    And, that follows the Bilibcal model as well. In the same admonition for servants to be subject to their masters (employers, debt-holders) is an admonition for masters to be respectful to their servants -- both recognizing that the true Master in heaven will judge both equally (Ephesians 6:5-9).
  20. #440  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Methinks sometimes you see your Bible in an overly positive light. Isn't the view of some people that the Bible is literally true a bit frightening for you, too?
    Funny you should say that. Your comments here actually have quite a lot in common with the biblical literalists. Most Christians understand that the New Testament and Jesus' ministry ushered in a new covenant, where Christians are no longer bound by Old Testament strictures. You, however, seem to believe that anyone who claims to be a Christian must somehow be forced to defend every line of Leviticus. What next? Shall we ask the Christians to defend Levitican proscriptions regarding feminine hygiene?
    Current: iPhone 3G
    Retired from active duty: Treo 800w, Sprint Touch, Mogul, Apache, Cingular Treo 650, HP iPaq 4350, T|T, M505 - Nokia 3650 - SE R520m, T610, T637, Moto P280, etc, etc...

Posting Permissions