If a child does something because they don't know any better, are they still wrong?
Bearing in mind that not many people in white society thought racism was wrong in the 1930s, could there be something we're doing today that would be considered wrong in 50, 70 or 100 years time?
The bible has pieces that defy logic and go into the divine
You misspelled the last word. You probably meant *evil Let's look at the good old Leviticus 20 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
btw I don't think that most Christians think the Bible is the word of God. Most of them acknoledge that it was written by men.
If God defined what's good and wrong with no special reasoning, why should we use these terms too? If God said that it's good to kill little babies, would that make it really good? If God didn't have a choice to define what's good and what's bad then it would be a objective morality. We should be able to find it by logic and reasoning, right? The closest/best approach to this is Sam Harris' definition (which still isn't really objective because it depends on concious beings).
btw I don't think that most Christians think the Bible is the word of God. Most of them acknoledge that it was written by men.
I agree it is directly written by people. But those people were inspired by there communications with God and wrote what they were inspired by God to write. God indirectly wrote the Bible.
Let's look at the good old Leviticus 20:13
I appreciate you calling it 'good old', but I have the feeling that was sarcasm. The religious like me will tell you that much of the old testament (which is so frequently taken out of context like it is here) is the build up to the new testament. The new testament outlines the new covenant, in which our sins are forgiven through Jesus death on the cross. The Old testament outlines the old, mosaic covenant in which we are bound to pay for our sins dearly ~ one way or another. The new replaces much of the old. Thank God Jesus the Christ came along.
If God defined what's good and wrong with no special reasoning, why should we use these terms too?
In short, yes, God defines right and wrong like that. We should use these terms because he is the one true and eternal God and loves us to the extent of dying on a cross. He loves us and is not going to tell us to do anything horrible like... well... kill little babies.
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." - Luke 19:27
New Testament, if I'm right. Words attributed to Jesus, if I'm right. Context? Did look at it; makes it even worse, honestly. How can this, that clearly displays Jesus' intolerance, contribute to the bible's 'unique and precise' moral ideals? How does that show love or mercy? How can these words be inspired by an all-loving god? How is that better than to kill little babies?
HahiHa, the way I read that jesus wasn't directly stating that. It seemed to be that jesus was telling a story with a morale. There was this king who gave a gold coin to each of his servents. The first made 10 gold coins out of it and the second made 5 gold coins out of it. The third kept it. And it was stupid because he could have at least put it in a bank.
Thanks Hahiha, you made me look into it. I hate to say it, but I think you may have taken this a little out of context. I don't know if I brought it up in this thread or another: The bible has parts that are to be interpreted metaphorically and some literally. Luke Chapter 19 is about Zacchaeus, a short man who went to great lengths to meet Jesus. When we get to the part of the chapter where this is said by Jesus, Jesus is trying to make a point about a parable he had just told. I'd recommend you read the story because Jesus was a fantastic storyteller and the verse you brought up was part of the parable not his teachings. On a seperate note: God gave us free will to accept or reject the morality as defined by him. He gave us free will because he didn't just want robots obeying his every order: Free will > options > reason. God loves us and even when we chose under our own free will to disobey him he still loved us enough to die for us.
God loves us and even when we chose under our own free will to disobey him he still loved us enough to die for us.
I agree with second. he will love us no matter what we do, but he will still discipline us just like any father disciplines their child for doing the wrong thing. so even if we start calling god a figment, or an obsolete notion, he will love us while punishing us for denying him so easily.
in my opinion, as long as one person believes in god, then he is real. so if half the world believes him in one form or another, then he a very real being.
In short, yes, God defines right and wrong like that. We should use these terms because he is the one true and eternal God and loves us to the extent of dying on a cross. He loves us and is not going to tell us to do anything horrible like... well... kill little babies.
Do you really want me to show you all the bad parts (mainly) in the old testament?
The new replaces much of the old. Thank God Jesus the Christ came along.
And if you say that the old testament doesn't count then I want to remember you about:
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)
in my opinion, as long as one person believes in god, then he is real. so if half the world believes him in one form or another, then he a very real being.
Cool, that makes the tooth fairy and Santa Claus real.
Okay, maybe this is going off-topic and we should discuss this in the Christianity thread.
I looked it up. I realized I had read the context of the verse in the story, but din't realize it was a story. My bad, sorry. Yet what is the morale of the parabole? Serve your master no matter what, for your own good?
I looked it up. I realized I had read the context of the verse in the story, but din't realize it was a story. My bad, sorry. Yet what is the morale of the parabole? Serve your master no matter what, for your own good?
I think (not compleatly sure) the moral was not to be afriad to try to be better. The first two people turned their one gold coin into many. But that third person was too afraid to do anything with it. I think the lesoon was that even though you might not do as well as you hope for you must still try. Ex: the first person did better then the second but the second still tried and did well.
grimml, I think those verses are just digging further into my point. In the Matthew verse you brought up, Jesus says fulfill. It's the same thing I said only using another word. The Luke verse, i'm sorry is taken out of context as well; i'd recommend reading that whole chapter or at least verses 16-18 for context on that one. The 2nd Peter verse you brought up is a matter of which translation you are using. I'd recommend that and the following verse and this translation to make it a little bit clearer:
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophetâs own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Thanks grimml, I sincerely appreciate you making me do my homework.
grimml, I think those verses are just digging further into my point. In the Matthew verse you brought up, Jesus says fulfill. It's the same thing I said only using another word. The Luke verse, i'm sorry is taken out of context as well; i'd recommend reading that whole chapter or at least verses 16-18 for context on that one. The 2nd Peter verse you brought up is a matter of which translation you are using. I'd recommend that and the following verse and this translation to make it a little bit clearer:
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. - 2nd peter 1:20-21 (New international version)
Thanks grimml, I sincerely appreciate you making me do my homework.
