This troubles me . . . what happens when you change your mind? Sorry, but I prefer my morals to be a little less "flexible". Right and wrong are real concepts, not some ephemeral idea that changes like the length of a woman's skirt.
Morals change all the time.....and by time I mean over years/decades/centuries. The bible advocates for slave ownership. Is that one of those less flexible morals you share?
You're in the Louvre, and there is a catastrophic fire... you have time to save the Mona Lisa (arguably the greatest artistic accomplishment of mankind), or one 6 month old baby.
What's more important?
Mark
The baby . . . no question.
And the Mona Lisa might be the most recognizable piece of art, but I doubt critics would call it the greatest artistic accomplishment of mankind.
This troubles me . . . what happens when you change your mind? Sorry, but I prefer my morals to be a little less "flexible". Right and wrong are real concepts, not some ephemeral idea that changes like the length of a woman's skirt.
Morals change all the time.....and by time I mean over years/decades/centuries. The bible advocates for slave ownership. Is that one of those less flexible morals you share?
You look it up....when I pull quotes you'll just say everything in the bible is God's word....except for the Old testament....oh and the part about women....oh and the part about slaves.....etc.
To be honest I don't know why you keep beating yourself up about your faith. You are the perfect Catholic...you know nothing about the bible.
You look it up....when I pull quotes you'll just say everything in the bible is God's word....except for the Old testament....oh and the part about women....oh and the part about slaves.....etc.
To be honest I don't know why you keep beating yourself up about your faith. You are the perfect Catholic...you know nothing about the bible.
This is too far...
Throughout this discussion, there's been a fair amount of bile slung, but not directly at a person. Milo and Brent have, to the best of their abilities, refrained from directly attacking anyone posting contrary to their position. Poor form sir!
Even when assaulted on all sides by myself, GTA and you about their misguided, self-righteous, and misogynistic stance on controlling women's bodies, they did not directly attack you!
Not once while ignoring the clearly patriarchal and biased interpretations of an outdated script, did they ignore your feelings.
When veiling the implied hatred and bigotry of their adherence to this faith, not once did they veil their concern for you.
Resolute in their discounting evidential, scientific, and common sense issues staring them right in the face, so too did they stand resolved to treat you, oh Caucasian male of peak age, with the respect and admiration that is your god given right.
You look it up....when I pull quotes you'll just say everything in the bible is God's word....except for the Old testament....oh and the part about women....oh and the part about slaves.....etc.
To be honest I don't know why you keep beating yourself up about your faith. You are the perfect Catholic...you know nothing about the bible.
The key question is whether or not a thoughtful and thorough understanding of the Bible would lead one to support or advocate for slavery. No rational person could anything other than that it does not. You may pick and choose quotes all you like, destroying context in the process, but that is the simple truth of the matter.
The key question is whether or not a thoughtful and thorough understanding of the Bible would lead one to support or advocate for slavery. No rational person could anything other than that it does not. You may pick and choose quotes all you like, destroying context in the process, but that is the simple truth of the matter.
The funny part is that a large portion of the Christian right did not agree with you. They believe that the bible is the word of God. Not to be parsed. Someone around here said something of the sort. I cannot remember who. BUT things changed.....morals changed...
In fact the largest argument brought to bear against ending slavery in the US was that the Bible supported slavery....but that changed. Like morals.
If the Bible is (New Testament) the word of God (not just what man decided to include)....how come he allowed the Old Testament, which you apparently believe is not God's word?
If the Bible is (New Testament) the word of God (not just what man decided to include)....how come he allowed the Old Testament, which you apparently believe is not God's word?
Option A: Beard-man on high, in his infinite wisdom realized that values and morals had to change with the evolving people and civilization
Option B: The elite and powerful decided they needed more effective ways to control the uninspired masses.
Option C: We can never possibly understand god's plan because everything happens for a reason, there's no such things as coincidence, and bad things happen to good people because it's all part of a grand scheme. Really, no, god's got this.. you'll see.
The funny part is that a large portion of the Christian right did not agree with you. They believe that the bible is the word of God. Not to be parsed. Someone around here said something of the sort. I cannot remember who. BUT things changed.....morals changed...
In fact the largest argument brought to bear against ending slavery in the US was that the Bible supported slavery....but that changed. Like morals.
If the Bible is (New Testament) the word of God (not just what man decided to include)....how come he allowed the Old Testament, which you apparently believe is not God's word?
Wrong . . . the abolitionist movement in the US was overwhelmingly Calvinist and Quaker . . . read Christian. The Bible does not support nor advocate for slavery. Times change . . . right and wrong do not.
As for the OT, written before Christ's birth. Hence the distinction between the two.Where did I say that I believe the OT is not the word of the Lord? All I have ever said is that the NT informs our understanding of the OT. Is this too subtle for you to grasp?
Wrong . . . the abolitionist movement in the US was overwhelmingly Calvinist and Quaker . . . read Christian. The Bible does not support nor advocate for slavery. Times change . . . right and wrong do not.
As for the OT, written before Christ's birth. Hence the distinction between the two.Where did I say that I believe the OT is not the word of the Lord? All I have ever said is that the NT informs our understanding of the OT. Is this too subtle for you to grasp?
I didn't say that ALL Christians were for Slavery....I said very clearly that the argument used by proponents of slavery was that the bible allowed it. Maybe that is too subtle for you to grasp.
As for the OT you twice in the Treyvon Martin Thread allude to the OT not being the word of God. But I'll once again let you look that up.
I'll leave you some time to look it up and change your mind.....again.
I didn't say that ALL Christians were for Slavery....I said very clearly that the argument used by proponents of slavery was that the bible allowed it. Maybe that is too subtle for you to grasp.
Perhaps . . . but they were wrong in their interpretation, as you are when you state that it advocates for it.
As for the OT you twice in the Treyvon Martin Thread allude to the OT not being the word of God. But I'll once again let you look that up.
Allude? What I have consistently said is that the OT is understood through the lens of the NT. Otherwise it is like reading half a book and deciding you knew the ending.
I'll leave you some time to look it up and change your mind.....again.
Not changing my mind at all . . . except perhaps in terms of my returning to the Faith of my upbringing. My position with regard to abortion has also changed as a result. It is actually now more consistent with not only my Faith, but also with science. It is the anti-religious who are inconsistent with regard to abortion. Somehow support for Human Rights goes out the window when it comes to the unborn, as if the mere fact of birth confers some magical status . . . a convenient bit of sophistry that allows them to avoid some difficult truths.
But this will be my last comment in this thread . . . do carry on without me.
Not changing my mind at all . . . except perhaps in terms of my returning to the Faith of my upbringing. My position with regard to abortion has also changed as a result. It is actually now more consistent with not only my Faith, but also with science. It is the anti-religious who are inconsistent with regard to abortion. Somehow support for Human Rights goes out the window when it comes to the unborn, as if the mere fact of birth confers some magical status . . . a convenient bit of sophistry that allows them to avoid some difficult truths.
But this will be my last comment in this thread . . . do carry on without me.
Are you aborting your participation in this thread?
Not changing my mind at all . . . except perhaps in terms of my returning to the Faith of my upbringing. My position with regard to abortion has also changed as a result. It is actually now more consistent with not only my Faith, but also with science. It is the anti-religious who are inconsistent with regard to abortion. Somehow support for Human Rights goes out the window when it comes to the unborn, as if the mere fact of birth confers some magical status . . . a convenient bit of sophistry that allows them to avoid some difficult truths.
But this will be my last comment in this thread . . . do carry on without me.
Comments
This troubles me . . . what happens when you change your mind? Sorry, but I prefer my morals to be a little less "flexible". Right and wrong are real concepts, not some ephemeral idea that changes like the length of a woman's skirt.
Morals change all the time.....and by time I mean over years/decades/centuries. The bible advocates for slave ownership. Is that one of those less flexible morals you share?
The baby . . . no question.
And the Mona Lisa might be the most recognizable piece of art, but I doubt critics would call it the greatest artistic accomplishment of mankind.
Advocates?
You look it up....when I pull quotes you'll just say everything in the bible is God's word....except for the Old testament....oh and the part about women....oh and the part about slaves.....etc.
To be honest I don't know why you keep beating yourself up about your faith. You are the perfect Catholic...you know nothing about the bible.
...put a coat-hanger in it and suck it up with a flow-bee, nothing left to see here
This is too far...
Throughout this discussion, there's been a fair amount of bile slung, but not directly at a person. Milo and Brent have, to the best of their abilities, refrained from directly attacking anyone posting contrary to their position. Poor form sir!
Even when assaulted on all sides by myself, GTA and you about their misguided, self-righteous, and misogynistic stance on controlling women's bodies, they did not directly attack you!
Not once while ignoring the clearly patriarchal and biased interpretations of an outdated script, did they ignore your feelings.
When veiling the implied hatred and bigotry of their adherence to this faith, not once did they veil their concern for you.
Resolute in their discounting evidential, scientific, and common sense issues staring them right in the face, so too did they stand resolved to treat you, oh Caucasian male of peak age, with the respect and admiration that is your god given right.
How dare you sir.
Mark
The key question is whether or not a thoughtful and thorough understanding of the Bible would lead one to support or advocate for slavery. No rational person could anything other than that it does not. You may pick and choose quotes all you like, destroying context in the process, but that is the simple truth of the matter.
Bazinga much?
The funny part is that a large portion of the Christian right did not agree with you. They believe that the bible is the word of God. Not to be parsed. Someone around here said something of the sort. I cannot remember who. BUT things changed.....morals changed...
In fact the largest argument brought to bear against ending slavery in the US was that the Bible supported slavery....but that changed. Like morals.
If the Bible is (New Testament) the word of God (not just what man decided to include)....how come he allowed the Old Testament, which you apparently believe is not God's word?
Option A: Beard-man on high, in his infinite wisdom realized that values and morals had to change with the evolving people and civilization
Option B: The elite and powerful decided they needed more effective ways to control the uninspired masses.
Option C: We can never possibly understand god's plan because everything happens for a reason, there's no such things as coincidence, and bad things happen to good people because it's all part of a grand scheme. Really, no, god's got this.. you'll see.
Mark
Wrong . . . the abolitionist movement in the US was overwhelmingly Calvinist and Quaker . . . read Christian. The Bible does not support nor advocate for slavery. Times change . . . right and wrong do not.
As for the OT, written before Christ's birth. Hence the distinction between the two.Where did I say that I believe the OT is not the word of the Lord? All I have ever said is that the NT informs our understanding of the OT. Is this too subtle for you to grasp?
testify.
I didn't say that ALL Christians were for Slavery....I said very clearly that the argument used by proponents of slavery was that the bible allowed it. Maybe that is too subtle for you to grasp.
As for the OT you twice in the Treyvon Martin Thread allude to the OT not being the word of God. But I'll once again let you look that up.
I'll leave you some time to look it up and change your mind.....again.
Not changing my mind at all . . . except perhaps in terms of my returning to the Faith of my upbringing. My position with regard to abortion has also changed as a result. It is actually now more consistent with not only my Faith, but also with science. It is the anti-religious who are inconsistent with regard to abortion. Somehow support for Human Rights goes out the window when it comes to the unborn, as if the mere fact of birth confers some magical status . . . a convenient bit of sophistry that allows them to avoid some difficult truths.
But this will be my last comment in this thread . . . do carry on without me.
Are you aborting your participation in this thread?
#fingerwags
Thank God.
I 1000000% promise that he will find new and exciting threads to make you roll your eyes.
Mark