34 replies to this topic

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 08 April 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

It may not have 'commanded' people to marry slves etc, but it didn't condemn them either. But it sure did condemn a lot of other things much more trivial in nature.

Personally I think 'biblical morals' need a serious update. It is 2012, not the dark ages. Some 'biblical morals' are highly questionable morals to hold, especially in a secular society. Just because it's 'biblical law' does not make it moral or right. Remember our conversation before related to sex before marriage? It led to people being treated in a certain, negative way. But it's ok to do so because it's 'biblical' therefore it's acceptable to shun people because the bible permits doing so.

No, it is never right to shun someone, even if they are committing "sin".  Christians believe that we all sin, even the best of us.  It would be hypocritical to shun someone for one sin but not for another.  And yes, I remember the discussion we had before.  No one was "shunned".  They were asked to leave regular worship services, but they were not shunned.  In fact, I saw one of them just a month or so back when I went to a wedding for a church friend.  Both partners were invited to the wedding, but one of them is doing their internship interstate and couldn't make it.  Being asked not to attend a service is not the same as shunning.  I detest shunning, Christians are called to love others, not shun them.

But I'm glad you acknowledge that marrying slaves was never a command, and within the context of that society I don't see why it would need to condemn it.    

shadowhive, on 08 April 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

'Biblical law' and 'biblical morality' is often used as a neat excuse to treat other human beings shamefully and get away with it guilt free. Or as an excuse to impose a certain set of morals on a person or group, instead of letting them have their freedom. Freedom is important and valuble but 'biblical law' is far too often used to violate people's freedoms.

It doesn't hurt to adapt with the times, but religion is always so rigid to change that changes take forever. Change is both important and necessary or human society to survive. The act that religion is so resistant to change doesn't do it any favors.

There is of course another issue and that's just that biblical law isn't really that clear cut. It's left open to interpretation. That's most obvious in the basic fact that Christianity has many different groups (catholics, mormons etc) all of which, although they have the same bible to work from, they all operate under slightly different morals.

As a minor aside, Mormons don't have the same Bible to work from - they also have the book of Mormon by which they inform their opinion.

I disagree with anyone who uses the Bible to treat others shamefully.  But we've been over this many time in the past, so there's no point revisiting it now.

shadowhive, on 08 April 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

Perhaps. They most likely did play a part, but the church wasn't completely blameless (largely for the same reasons).

Galileo wasn't blameless either.  THIS SITE contains an interesting article on the matter if you get a chance to read it.  The site is about "answering Islam", but the article itself comes from a Sydney Christian publication back in the 90's.  I have the article in its full content in a book I own, and it goes into greater detail than this shorter paper, but the key information is still largely the same and shows how this isn't at all a matter of "Science vs Religion/Christianity".

~ Regards,

Edited by Paranoid Android, 08 April 2012 - 06:18 PM.

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 08 April 2012 - 06:15 PM, said:

No, it is never right to shun someone, even if they are committing "sin".  Christians believe that we all sin, even the best of us.  It would be hypocritical to shun someone for one sin but not for another.  And yes, I remember the discussion we had before.  No one was "shunned".  They were asked to leave regular worship services, but they were not shunned.  In fact, I saw one of them just a month or so back when I went to a wedding for a church friend.  Both partners were invited to the wedding, but one of them is doing their internship interstate and couldn't make it.  Being asked not to attend a service is not the same as shunning.  I detest shunning, Christians are called to love others, not shun them.

But I'm glad you acknowledge that marrying slaves was never a command, and within the context of that society I don't see why it would need to condemn it.

It's never 'right' but it happens so often doesn't it? Biblical morality is so often used to as an excuse to shun people. And the bible and it's laws/morality is used to beat the people over the head with it.

They were 'asked to leave' which, to me counts as shunning (just done politely). It also strikes me as hypocritical like you mention.

Well I'm glad they're still doing ok. Likely they're doing better without a negative influence in their lives.

Not a command, but not condemned... therefore it doesn't get changed. Other things end up getting maintained in society for the same reasoning.

Quote

As a minor aside, Mormons don't have the same Bible to work from - they also have the book of Mormon by which they inform their opinion.

I disagree with anyone who uses the Bible to treat others shamefully.  But we've been over this many time in the past, so there's no point revisiting it now.

True. But the point still stands.

You 'disagree with it' while at the same time approve of it. Just make sure it's done politely and you can get away with it. There are many ways to harm people and treat them shamefully, some which you approve of because they're biblical in nature. A perfect example is what was mentioned above, revealing someone's sex lives to a group of people. That sounds pretty shaming to me. I it was anyone other than a pastor you'd likely agree. But because it is? That makes it ok.

There's a definite double standard, all because the bible says so.

Quote

Galileo wasn't blameless either.  THIS SITE contains an interesting article on the matter if you get a chance to read it.  The site is about "answering Islam", but the article itself comes from a Sydney Christian publication back in the 90's.  I have the article in its full content in a book I own, and it goes into greater detail than this shorter paper, but the key information is still largely the same and shows how this isn't at all a matter of "Science vs Religion/Christianity".

~ Regards,

Hmmm. I'll try and have a look soon.

Edited by shadowhive, 08 April 2012 - 08:03 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 08 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

They were 'asked to leave' which, to me counts as shunning (just done politely). It also strikes me as hypocritical like you mention.

And yet we still hang out with them, just not in a church context.  And it's not like we're going behind the wishes of the church here, we were  should still hang with them and treat them just as we would anyone else.  That is not shunning.  The dictionary definition of shunning someone is persistently and intentionally avoiding them.  If you shun your brother, you do things like not even acknowledge their presence even if they are in the same room.  That is not what happened in this case, we actively seek to remain friends with them, so therefore it is not shunning.

shadowhive, on 08 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

You 'disagree with it' while at the same time approve of it.

No, I never approve of it, and disagree with it strongly.  But again, we're rehashing old arguments.  

shadowhive, on 08 April 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

Hmmm. I'll try and have a look soon.

No worries, I hope you find it interesting

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 09 April 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

And yet we still hang out with them, just not in a church context.  And it's not like we're going behind the wishes of the church here, we were  should still hang with them and treat them just as we would anyone else.  That is not shunning.  The dictionary definition of shunning someone is persistently and intentionally avoiding them.  If you shun your brother, you do things like not even acknowledge their presence even if they are in the same room.  That is not what happened in this case, we actively seek to remain friends with them, so therefore it is not shunning.

It may not fit the dictionary definition, but I'd still say it's a form of it. It's certainly not a good and positive thing, nor is it a loving and kind way of treating your fellow human beings and it's certainly nothing to be proud of. But like I said, at least they're no longer around a negative, judgemental influence.

Quote

No, I never approve of it, and disagree with it strongly.  But again, we're rehashing old arguments.

Like I said there is a line about discussing people's private lives in public. Since you're ok with your pastor crossing that line that means you both approve and agaree with it. I you really didn't approve of it and disagree strongly with it then you'd have made a point to tell your pastor that what he did was inappropriate.

If the same thing had happened in any other scenario I'm sure you'd have been quick to 'not approve and disagree strongly' with it.

Quote

No worries, I hope you find it interesting

It was actually. Seems Gallieo's nature didn't do him any favors but the church still should have stayed out of it.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 09 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

It may not fit the dictionary definition, but I'd still say it's a form of it. It's certainly not a good and positive thing, nor is it a loving and kind way of treating your fellow human beings and it's certainly nothing to be proud of.

I disagree, it may not be "positive" in the way that society would view it, but I do think it loving and an acceptable way of treating fellow believers.  Though once again we've been over this in previous posts.  Honestly, I've lost count of the amount of times I've mentioned this, I get the impression you want the final say, and if this be so then consider this my final response on the matter

shadowhive, on 09 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

But like I said, at least they're no longer around a negative, judgemental influence.

They are with the same people though (except the dude, he's gone interstate for his Internship, but that's not too out of the ordinary for university in Australia, and unless he's decided not to continue his relationship he comes back every few months, and will eventually come back when his internship is finished).  So even though they may not attend the church they are still hanging around those who agree with the same "negative judgemental influence" to which you allude.

shadowhive, on 09 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Like I said there is a line about discussing people's private lives in public. Since you're ok with your pastor crossing that line that means you both approve and agaree with it. I you really didn't approve of it and disagree strongly with it then you'd have made a point to tell your pastor that what he did was inappropriate.

If the same thing had happened in any other scenario I'm sure you'd have been quick to 'not approve and disagree strongly' with it.

In a church context, the pastor is the obvious person for the task, and I may disapprove of someone who would approach the congregation without first going through its leader, but I would not disapprove of the action itself (standard procedure, go to your brother/sister alone, then with one or two fellow brothers/sisters, then finally the congregation - if the leader of the congregation is not among those consulted, that is simply bad protocol and would probably require final decision by the pastor anyway).  I guess it depends on what you mean by "any other scenario"?  What other scenario would be akin to "taking it before the congregation"?  The congregation refers to the church, and though a person may not attend a religious gathering, that does not disqualify them from hanging out with people outside of that religious setting.  In what other setting might a person legitimately be "brought before the congregation" (no, a family is not a congregation, they are first and foremost a family!)    

To use an example, if a Science Fiction fan joined a Star Wars club that had a strict "no drugs" policy.  The person took some marijuana and was kicked out.  Is that "shunning"?  It doesn't mean that members of the club can't continue to hang out with them outside of the Star Wars meetings - let's say they went to a sci-fi convention, they'd meet up and do all the normal things, they wouldn't be shunned for taking the drugs.  

shadowhive, on 09 April 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

It was actually. Seems Gallieo's nature didn't do him any favors but the church still should have stayed out of it.

Indeed, Galileo was often his own worst enemy when it came to his own behaviour and attitude.  But whether the church should have acted or not, the greater point is that the church wouldn't (or likely wouldn't) have acted in the first place if Galileo's peers (his fellow scientists) weren't afraid of their own status.  Before the scientists felt threatened, many church officials (including a soon-to-be Pope) took an active interest in Galileo's ideas, without any issue of heresy.

It's also worth noting that only the Catholic Church had problem with it.  In protestant countries, Galileo's views were not put to the same scrutiny because of the Protestant focus on personal interpretation and rejection of universal Church authority.

Sorry, I'm quite biased on this issue after reading the full article.  Before I'd read it I had so often been told about how Galileo's life was an example of how science has been kept back, but after reading the article it seems that this isn't what happened at all.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 09 April 2012 - 06:28 PM.

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 09 April 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

I disagree, it may not be "positive" in the way that society would view it, but I do think it loving and an acceptable way of treating fellow believers.  Though once again we've been over this in previous posts.  Honestly, I've lost count of the amount of times I've mentioned this, I get the impression you want the final say, and if this be so then consider this my final response on the matter

Then you have a questionable deintition of 'love'.

Quote

They are with the same people though (except the dude, he's gone interstate for his Internship, but that's not too out of the ordinary for university in Australia, and unless he's decided not to continue his relationship he comes back every few months, and will eventually come back when his internship is finished).  So even though they may not attend the church they are still hanging around those who agree with the same "negative judgemental influence" to which you allude.

Ah but they're out of the judgemental influence of your church, which is a good thing. (And also they're now in a situation where any of you that may have objections have absolutely no inluence andpower over them to make them change.)

Quote

In a church context, the pastor is the obvious person for the task, and I may disapprove of someone who would approach the congregation without first going through its leader, but I would not disapprove of the action itself (standard procedure, go to your brother/sister alone, then with one or two fellow brothers/sisters, then finally the congregation - if the leader of the congregation is not among those consulted, that is simply bad protocol and would probably require final decision by the pastor anyway).  I guess it depends on what you mean by "any other scenario"?  What other scenario would be akin to "taking it before the congregation"?  The congregation refers to the church, and though a person may not attend a religious gathering, that does not disqualify them from hanging out with people outside of that religious setting.  In what other setting might a person legitimately be "brought before the congregation" (no, a family is not a congregation, they are first and foremost a family!)    

To use an example, if a Science Fiction fan joined a Star Wars club but always kept saying how Star Wars sucked but Star Trek totally kicked butt, I would be entirely happy for that club to ask the Trekkie to not attend their group meetings.  Is that "shunning" a sci-fi fan?  It doesn't mean that members of the club can't continue to hang out with them outside of the Star Wars meetings - let's say they went to a sci-fi convention, they'd meet up and do all their usual thing.

It seems you have misunderstood my meaning of what I was trying to say. Some things in a person's life are personal and private. A perfect example is if someone is having sex. Things that are of that nature should NOT be broadcast to a group of people. Just because your church sees sex as a sin doesn't mean it should be broadcast in front of the conregation regardless of 'procedure'.

Now to use your example in the way I meant. If someone in that Science Fiction club stood up in front of the others and discussed another memeber's personal and private life, would that be either acceptable or appropriate behaviour?

Quote

Indeed, Galileo was often his own worst enemy when it came to his own behaviour and attitude.  But whether the church should have acted or not, the greater point is that the church wouldn't have acted in the first place if Galileo's peers (his fellow scientists) weren't afraid of their own status.  Before the scientists felt threatened, many church officials (including a soon-to-be Pope) took an active interest in Galileo's ideas, without any issue of heresy.

It's also worth noting that only the Catholic Church had problem with it.  In protestant countries, Galileo's views were not put to the same scrutiny because of the Protestant focus on personal interpretation and rejection of universal Church authority.

Sorry, I'm quite biased on this issue after reading the full article.  Before I'd read it I had so often been told about how Galileo's life was an example of how science has been kept back, but after reading the article it seems that this isn't what happened at all.

Which he does have his own attititude to blame and while the fellow scientists did act inappropriately that doesn't make the church blameless. It still allowed itself to become involved in a situation that it shouldn't have. It may have been manipulated into that situation, but still it made the ultimate decision to be involved.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 09 April 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Ah but they're out of the judgemental influence of your church, which is a good thing. (And also they're now in a situation where any of you that may have objections have absolutely no inluence andpower over them to make them change.)

A "church" is defined by its people, wouldn't you say?  Exact same people, different context.  Though I do agree that they are removed from the social position where they are confronted with a challenge.

Better question is why they still decided to hang around with the same group of people even after what happened to them?

shadowhive, on 09 April 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

It seems you have misunderstood my meaning of what I was trying to say. Some things in a person's life are personal and private. A perfect example is if someone is having sex. Things that are of that nature should NOT be broadcast to a group of people. Just because your church sees sex as a sin doesn't mean it should be broadcast in front of the conregation regardless of 'procedure'.

Now to use your example in the way I meant. If someone in that Science Fiction club stood up in front of the others and discussed another memeber's personal and private life, would that be either acceptable or appropriate behaviour?

I amended my example just a little bit before you posted, but I do see the difference in your meaning.  At this point I would again ask what other situation would be akin to "taking something before the congregation".  A "church" is a group of believers who meet with the purpose of worshipping together and holding a common set of beliefs, praying for each other, and where necessary rebuking one another and correcting them.  No other organisation that I am aware of fits this attitude.  If you can find me a legitimate time where a similar type of gathering might publicly announce wrongdoing, I might be able to have a base comparision - hence why I asked what you meant by "any other scenario".  In the amended example I provided, if someone asked why Johnny was no longer attending the Star Wars group a leader figure might say "he broke the rules that we have all agreed to abide by".  Some might even say he did drugs.  That's personal information.  

shadowhive, on 09 April 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Which he does have his own attititude to blame and while the fellow scientists did act inappropriately that doesn't make the church blameless. It still allowed itself to become involved in a situation that it shouldn't have. It may have been manipulated into that situation, but still it made the ultimate decision to be involved.

I did not say the church was blameless, I said that this was not a matter of "Religion vs science", but rather "old science vs new science" as the article argues.  And even if the church is partly to blame, it is only one denomination, and since the Protestant Reformation was well under way by this time, it is wrong to blame all of religion (let alone all of Christianity) for this action.  

As I said, ever since I've read this article (and I've read the expanded version of this article) I've been biased towards the "science vs religion" argument.  Going right back to what sparked this discussion, the suggestion was raised that if it weren't for religion (Christianity specifically) we'd be 100 years more advanced in Science than we are right now.  I reject that idea outright in favour of people in general resisting change (regardless of their religion).  

~ Regards,

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 09 April 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

A "church" is defined by its people, wouldn't you say?  Exact same people, different context.  Though I do agree that they are removed from the social position where they are confronted with a challenge.

Better question is why they still decided to hang around with the same group of people even after what happened to them?

The important thing is the 'chellenge' isn't there anymore. But then again, that challenge shouldn't hve been there in the first place.

Quote

I amended my example just a little bit before you posted, but I do see the difference in your meaning.  At this point I would again ask what other situation would be akin to "taking something before the congregation".  A "church" is a group of believers who meet with the purpose of worshipping together and holding a common set of beliefs, praying for each other, and where necessary rebuking one another and correcting them.  No other organisation that I am aware of fits this attitude.  If you can find me a legitimate time where a similar type of gathering might publicly announce wrongdoing, I might be able to have a base comparision - hence why I asked what you meant by "any other scenario".  In the amended example I provided, if someone asked why Johnny was no longer attending the Star Wars group a leader figure might say "he broke the rules that we have all agreed to abide by".  Some might even say he did drugs.  That's personal information.

There is a BIG difference between taking drugs (which is often against the law and can result in jailtime) and consentual sex with someone you're in a relationship (which isn't a criminal offense).

'Wrongdoing' has an extremely loose definition when it comes to the church. As such, somethings that are personal and private can be used against people, even if those things aren't criminal offenses or harmful. Bringing someone's sex lives in front of a group of people (potentially without consent) is extremely shaming. The fact that you're ok with it simply because it's an attempt to 'rebuke and correct' (and I'm sure you are with things other than sex) shows how dubiious your claims are that you disagree with the bible being used to cause harm. You're perfectly happy to cause harm, as long as it's not physical and done in the name of 'correction'.

Indeed, if I knew you in real life and knew you had partcipated in such actions (and indeed condoned them) I'd find it very dificult to trust you because who knows what personal information I may share with you that you'd deem ok to spread to your congregation?

Quote

I did not say the church was blameless, I said that this was not a matter of "Religion vs science", but rather "old science vs new science" as the article argues.  And even if the church is partly to blame, it is only one denomination, and since the Protestant Reformation was well under way by this time, it is wrong to blame all of religion (let alone all of Christianity) for this action.  

As I said, ever since I've read this article (and I've read the expanded version of this article) I've been biased towards the "science vs religion" argument.  Going right back to what sparked this discussion, the suggestion was raised that if it weren't for religion (Christianity specifically) we'd be 100 years more advanced in Science than we are right now.  I reject that idea outright in favour of people in general resisting change (regardless of their religion).  

~ Regards,

While it may have started as 'old science vs new science' it ended with 'old science and the catholic church vs new science' and that's how it's been remembered.

This is one example, which doesn't automatically change everything to me.

Edited by shadowhive, 09 April 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 09 April 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

There is a BIG difference between taking drugs (which is often against the law and can result in jailtime) and consentual sex with someone you're in a relationship (which isn't a criminal offense).

I understand that drugs are still illegal, but gang bangs are legal, but when I was part of a Star Wars costuming group and I went to an event representing this group and engaged in group sex I would probably be said to be bringing the group into disrepute and be removed (perhaps given a warning first).  That said, it wasn't that long ago that sex before marriage was still unlawful.  Sure, society has changed, but certain groups (such as church groups) still maintain a set of standards of behaviour that its members are asked to adhere to.  If a person attending that group disagrees with the set of standards and acts in contradiction to them, just because someone else might find it acceptable behaviour does not mean that within the context of that group that it therefore is acceptable.

shadowhive, on 09 April 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

The fact that you're ok with it simply because it's an attempt to 'rebuke and correct' (and I'm sure you are with things other than sex) shows how dubiious your claims are that you disagree with the bible being used to cause harm. You're perfectly happy to cause harm, as long as it's not physical and done in the name of 'correction'.

Indeed, if I knew you in real life and knew you had partcipated in such actions (and indeed condoned them) I'd find it very dificult to trust you because who knows what personal information I may share with you that you'd deem ok to spread to your congregation?

I think being done as an act of "love" would be more correct than an act of "correction", though it is possibly both.  Motives play a huge part.  But once again, we are moving back into old arguments.  As with the last part, if you wish to have the last say go ahead, unless there's something new I won't respond to this part of your post again.  

shadowhive, on 09 April 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

While it may have started as 'old science vs new science' it ended with 'old science and the catholic church vs new science' and that's how it's been remembered.

This is one example, which doesn't automatically change everything to me.

And shows to me that if we go back to the claim that science would be a hundred years more advanced if not for the Catholic church, I reject that completely.

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 10 April 2012 - 05:57 AM, said:

I understand that drugs are still illegal, but gang bangs are legal, but when I was part of a Star Wars costuming group and I went to an event representing this group and engaged in group sex I would probably be said to be bringing the group into disrepute and be removed (perhaps given a warning first).  That said, it wasn't that long ago that sex before marriage was still unlawful.  Sure, society has changed, but certain groups (such as church groups) still maintain a set of standards of behaviour that its members are asked to adhere to.  If a person attending that group disagrees with the set of standards and acts in contradiction to them, just because someone else might find it acceptable behaviour does not mean that within the context of that group that it therefore is acceptable.

If you went to this gang bang in costume acting as a representative of the group, than sure, that is an issue. But if you went to a gang bang as yourself, then it wouldn't be anyone's buisness. (The issue, o course, being that you went as a representative, not that you went.) Outside of that group you are still a free man and able to do any other activity (and join any other group) without it either interfering with, or being the buisness of, the costuming group. Again it becomes an issue of the group overstepping it's bounds, acting on members private and personal lives which have no impact on the actual group.

I'm thankful society has changed and considers it's natural progression of evolving without the church being able to dictate. However it still saddens me that they're people that are ok with the church dictating people's lives (even if only in the church context) without letting people have the personal freedoms they're entitled to have as a human being. And, of course, there's still crossing the line of privacy to broadcast it to the group. People can always have sex before marriage and not let your little group know.

Quote

I think being done as an act of "love" would be more correct than an act of "correction", though it is possibly both.  Motives play a huge part.  But once again, we are moving back into old arguments.  As with the last part, if you wish to have the last say go ahead, unless there's something new I won't respond to this part of your post again.

Just because something is done out of 'love' doesn't change that it's a harmful act. So it doesn't change much. You say you disagree with the bible being used to harm people, then backtrack and offer excuses if it's done 'out of love'. I'm sorry, but motives don't change the act that doing something harmful IS harmful.

After all some parents do things that harm their children 'out of love' but that doesn't change the harm those actions do (and won't be enough to keep them out of prison if that harm crosses into illegal territory). My point being if it's done out of love or correction or whatever, it doesn't matter if the ultimate action is a harmful one. And since you said you disagree with the bible being used to harm, well that just proves that claim is incorrect. What you actually believe is 'you disagree with the bible being used to cause harm unless it's done out of love'.

Edited by shadowhive, 10 April 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 10 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

If you went to this gang bang in costume acting as a representative of the group, than sure, that is an issue. But if you went to a gang bang as yourself, then it wouldn't be anyone's buisness. (The issue, o course, being that you went as a representative, not that you went.)

So when is a Christian "not a representative" of Christ?

shadowhive, on 10 April 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

Just because something is done out of 'love' doesn't change that it's a harmful act.

And so we have argued on dozens of other occasions, so no point in arguing further.  As with the last two points, if you wish the last say, you can have it.  I won't argue further, it's not going to add anything to other discussions.

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 10 April 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

So when is a Christian "not a representative" of Christ?

So that means a christian always has to be 'on'? That's how come christians think that their way must be codified in law and why everyone has to follow their rules.

A christian is always a human being FIRST with all the associated human rights that entails. Which includes a right to privacy. Unless, of course, you think christians have no right to having privacy.

Quote

And so we have argued on dozens of other occasions, so no point in arguing further.  As with the last two points, if you wish the last say, you can have it.  I won't argue further, it's not going to add anything to other discussions.

Good. I just don't understand how you can claim to have one way of thinking while flagrantly being the opposite.

Edited by shadowhive, 10 April 2012 - 06:49 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

shadowhive, on 10 April 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:

So that means a christian always has to be 'on'? That's how come christians think that their way must be codified in law and why everyone has to follow their rules.

A christian is always a human being FIRST with all the associated human rights that entails. Which includes a right to privacy. Unless, of course, you think christians have no right to having privacy.

1- Yes, a Christian always has to be "on".  That is why it is so hard to be one, and why no one can ever be perfect - we can't always be on, so we sometimes stumble and fall.  

2- No, not everyone has to follow our rules.  But if they attend a church group that holds a certain set of standards, then they should attempt to follow those standards.  

3- If this couple were approached by the pastor and told that premarital sex is sin and not acceptable for people at this church and they said "look, we aren't like that so we're going to leave", that's fine and it would be left there, they'd leave and find a new congregation.  No one would ever know.  That would be a matter of privacy.  However, if they wish to remain at that church and refuse to change behaviour, then it is a matter of unrepentant sin.  When it comes to Christian brothers and sisters in a congregation, on matters of unrepentant sin and they simply refuse to change, then there is no such thing as privacy.  I would expect a Christian at my church to do the same for me if I was committing unrepentant sin. *note the term "unrepentant" here, we're not talking about matters where a person may be sinning but admitting it is wrong and struggling and failing*

But of course, I've already explained all this before.  I think you could have written my response for me, just as I could probably write your response for you.  Since that is the case, I'm going to bow out of this thread, we've kind of hijacked it from the original premise about marriage anyway.  Best wishes,

~ PA

[shadowhive]

Paranoid Android, on 11 April 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

1- Yes, a Christian always has to be "on".  That is why it is so hard to be one, and why no one can ever be perfect - we can't always be on, so we sometimes stumble and fall.  

2- No, not everyone has to follow our rules.  But if they attend a church group that holds a certain set of standards, then they should attempt to follow those standards.  

3- If this couple were approached by the pastor and told that premarital sex is sin and not acceptable for people at this church and they said "look, we aren't like that so we're going to leave", that's fine and it would be left there, they'd leave and find a new congregation.  No one would ever know.  That would be a matter of privacy.  However, if they wish to remain at that church and refuse to change behaviour, then it is a matter of unrepentant sin.  When it comes to Christian brothers and sisters in a congregation, on matters of unrepentant sin and they simply refuse to change, then there is no such thing as privacy.  I would expect a Christian at my church to do the same for me if I was committing unrepentant sin. *note the term "unrepentant" here, we're not talking about matters where a person may be sinning but admitting it is wrong and struggling and failing*

But of course, I've already explained all this before.  I think you could have written my response for me, just as I could probably write your response for you.  Since that is the case, I'm going to bow out of this thread, we've kind of hijacked it from the original premise about marriage anyway.  Best wishes,

~ PA

Well that's lovely that you think fellow christians aren't entitled to the basic right of privacy just because of 'sin'. That is so disrespectful and inappropriate I'm not sure how you can keep saying your're against the bible being used in such a way and keep a straight face. But of course, it's done out of love, so that makes it ok.

As for 2, the christians that want the bible made law are just expanding on what you believe. Indeed, many doing the hateful, shameful things (things which, you recall, said you were against) do them because they think they're being loving (which, since the motive is all that matters as you said a few posts back, makes their actions excuseable). Hence your two statements are just incompartable.

To tie this back with the general issue of marriage, it's all about christians wanting to force the general populace to believe in their ideal of it. Worst of all they think what they're doing is loving, but in reality it's the opposite. People want to marry because they're in a loving, committed relationship. Christians want to stop them because that love is not recognised by their bible. Indeed, the bible calls their love 'unnrepentant sin' (which is a pretty hateful thing to say to begin with) which christians the world over think gives them the right to put a stop to it. It starts with wrongs done in congregations (in the name of biblical morality) but soon spreads to families, the community and society in general. But of course, it's done out of love. So that makes it all alright.

I'm sorry but when it comes to love, calling it 'unrepentant sin' is just hateful, disrepectful, shaming and at least a dozen other things. But what do you, a person that openly says they are against they are against such things? You can't even admit that calling something unrepentnt sin is hateful. Indeed, it's not hateful it's 'loving'.

I always pressure you because I hope that, someday, you'll realise that massive contradiction (and the christians the world over do it too).

[Mr Walker]

[quote] name='shadowhive' timestamp='1334083638' post='4261047']
So that means a christian always has to be 'on'? That's how come christians think that their way must be codified in law and why everyone has to follow their rules.[/quote]

Just to butt in and respond to two points here. Of course a christian  must always be "on". Isnt tha true of anyone who has a set of ethical beliefs? Why hold them if you can break them when you want to. We ALL have an obligation to be "on" at all times.

[quote]A christian is always a human being FIRST with all the associated human rights that entails. Which includes a right to privacy. Unless, of course, you think christians have no right to having privacy.[/quote] But a christian will see a human being as INCLUDING either a physical or or a concetual god as part of being human. And so, to be human first, one has to include god.

No. A christainn has no right to privacy. They do not HAVE privacy in that sense. They share their body, heart, and mind with god. God resides there, and knows every thought, feels every emotion, they have.

How can one have privacy in those conditions?  Personally, knowing god and how he connects to me, I think that this is true for all humans, because god resides in all of us; but some just dont appreciate or acknowledge it, and so are not obliged to act on it.
They can act as if no one knows their thoughts and emotions.

Yet god is bound by an "oath of confidentiality." He won't tell anyone else your inner thoughts and feelings, and so you retain your privacy just between you and god  And as you and god are inseparable, anyway, that is the most privacy a person can expect.
As an atheist I thought of it this way. I had an inner voice or conscience. I had no privacy from that conscience. It informed and drove every thing i did. It made me act honestly and with love to others  I tkept me form stealing or cheating inmind or body on my wife for example. It kept me true to my value lines and ethical standards i had evolved intellectually philosophiclaly and emotionally.

The only differnce with god is that I acknolwedge there is also a part of me connected to a greater wiser and more powerful being than I am. I dont just have to justify evry thouhgt deed to my inner voice or conscience but to god.  And god will; correct, mentor, guide,  emcourage, strengthen, and otherwise help me meet his own standards for living as a human being, as well as my own.

Edited by Mr Walker, 12 April 2012 - 01:11 AM.