Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
THE MATRIX

What Marriage would be if we Follow the Bible

35 posts in this topic

My link

Let me tell you a secret about Bible believers that I know because I was one. Most of them don’t read their Bibles. If they did, they would know that the biblical model of sex and marriage has little to do with the one they so loudly defend. Stories depicted in the Bible include rape, incest, master-slave sexual relations, captive virgins, and more. Now, just because a story is told in the Bible doesn’t mean it is intended as a model for devout behavior. Other factors have to be considered, like whether God commands or forbids the behavior, if the behavior is punished, and if Jesus subsequently indicates the rules have changed, come the New Testament.

Through this lens, you find that the God of the Bible still endorses polygamy and sexual slavery and coerced marriage of young virgins along with monogamy. In fact, he endorses all three to the point of providing detailed regulations. Based on stories of sex and marriage that God rewards and appears to approve one might add incest to the mix. Nowhere does the Bible say, “Don’t have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the Muslims got it right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Eh, not seeing the problem here. :innocent:

^

Joking, of course.

Edited by Spid3rCyd3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hhmmm ... seems to me as if the author spent a lot of words to make his point in the last paragraph of his article: B);)

Gay marriage will come, as will reproductive rights, and these Bible believers will adapt to the change as they have others: reluctantly, slowly and with angry protests, but in the end accepting it,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hhmmm ... seems to me as if the author spent a lot of words to make his point in the last paragraph of his article: B);)

Gay marriage will come, as will reproductive rights, and these Bible believers will adapt to the change as they have others: reluctantly, slowly and with angry protests, but in the end accepting it,

Very well said, Karlis.:tu:

I myself, am a seeing this.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing the author of the article virtually totally ignored is the fact that virtually all people, both male and female, in biblical times had no choice as to who they marry. Whether the marriage comes from two families agreeing on a price, or whether it is a former slave to be married to someone, they generally were not given a choice. Occasionally some chose to marry, but it was rare. Thus, the use of the term "sex slave" and "types of sex slavery" is entirely redundant. It's emotional language designed to cause a reaction. It bears no similarity to how people living in that society would have viewed it. If you travelled back in time and told someone they were participating in "sex slavery" they'd say:

These days we don't own slaves, we don't arrange marriages (generally speaking, naturally some countries are still an exception - an old work colleague grew up in India, she had never met her husband before their parents arranged the marriage). To suggest that this is what marriage would look like if we followed the Bible, that's just ludicrous.

~ PA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point (to me anyway) is that the bible has things in it that are unacceptable today but Christians willing gloss those over (as, like PA says, they were acceptable at the time of it's writing). So to the majority of Christians 'the bible says so' is actually not an acceptable reason to do something. However, there's other 'Christians' which claim that because the bible says so, it makes what they're doing correct (especially when 'defending' marriage).

If we had maintained the stance those Christians are advocating now (the bible says so, therefore that's that) society would not be as it is today. We wouldn't have moved much forward from the days when the bible was first compiled. The reality is we as a people can (and have) moved forward, despite what the bible may say. Society we continue to move forward in this fashion and, as the article said, religion will eventually catch up. Right now though it's too concerned with it's own self interest and doesn't much care who it harms in the process (which does more harm than good).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The social change to include same sex marriage is a global phenomena. Christianity on the other hand is just one of the world's religions. It's motive to exist is not to suppress same sex marriage. Had Christianity never rose or if it had since waned this issue of same sex marriage would still be facing the same challenges due to the fact that all progress faces the same challenges when confronting tradition.

All things change including Christianity. The church is rarely the same in any era. The jest of the OP could be said of any past-present cultural comparisons. What if we society was exactly like ancient Greece or Rome. They had slaves but that does not stop us from aspiring to the same democratic ideals of ancient Greece or having a road infrastructure as Rome.

How many Christians claim society today should mirror ancient Biblical times exactly? And if that is what some believe Christians want then which ancient Biblical era? There is not just one. No, wanting to continue what some believe are enduring principles and ideals does not mean desiring all the baggage of any era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The main point (to me anyway) is that the bible has things in it that are unacceptable today but Christians willing gloss those over (as, like PA says, they were acceptable at the time of it's writing). So to the majority of Christians 'the bible says so' is actually not an acceptable reason to do something.

If you asked a person in ancient Hebrew society the following question: "Does God command you to marry your slaves", the answer would be "no, it's not a command". An account of what life was like and therefore how to act within that society does not therefore mean that God commands it. It's the difference between Descriptive Writing and Prescriptive Writing. Descriptive simply explains how things were. Prescriptive commands us to be like that. If we don't have arranged marriages, then the laws about marrying slaves is descriptive, not prescriptive. So it is not at all the case of "glossing over" something.

Correct?

~ PA

Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you asked a person in ancient Hebrew society the following question: "Does God command you to marry your slaves", the answer would be "no, it's not a command". An account of what life was like and therefore how to act within that society does not therefore mean that God commands it. It's the difference between Descriptive Writing and Prescriptive Writing. Descriptive simply explains how things were. Prescriptive commands us to be like that. If we don't have arranged marriages, then the laws about marrying slaves is descriptive, not prescriptive. So it is not at all the case of "glossing over" something.

Correct?

~ PA

Sure, there is a difference between the two. However history shows that when it comes to any form of social change, that difference doesn't matter. If it is in the bible (and done by the Christians/Hebrews of the day), it is considered acceptable. As I see it, you can split Christians into two basic groups: ones which display common sense and willing to accept social change despite what the bible my say and Christians that hold the bible as all important and will resist any social change that isn't approved by the bible, regardless of whose rights they trample over and who they hurt in the process.

The importaant thing is that we are living in 21st century society, NOT ancient Hebrew society. Christians need to be more willing to see and accept that vast difference, rather than clinging onto things that are best left in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~~~ ...

The important thing is that we are living in 21st century society, NOT ancient Hebrew society. Christians need to be more willing to see and accept that vast difference, rather than clinging onto things that are best left in the past.

In the 21st Century marriages end up close to 50% divorces. In the 21st Century a large percentage of children are born outside of marriage. In the 21st Century STD is endemic. Care to go on about the benefits of social benefits of "In the 21st Century"?

It would be interesting if it was possible to realistically compare the basic pros and cons of the social structures -- and by no means ignoring the benefits of modern technology, which by rights should have put Mankind into a Utopian Life-Style today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In the 21st Century marriages end up close to 50% divorces. In the 21st Century a large percentage of children are born outside of marriage. In the 21st Century STD is endemic. Care to go on about the benefits of social benefits of "In the 21st Century"?

People can choose who they can marry and, as importantly, CAN divorce. Let us not forget that divorces can be for the right reasons (to get out of abusive relationships for example). Also recall that marrying and staying married 'for the children' is a pretty poor reasoning and can do more harm than good. And, of course, there's other things like women don't have to marry their rapists if they get pregnant.

People can also marry regardless of church objections. (Which is something the church seems to have trouble remembering.)

On top of that (in Western countries) you can be gay and NOT be immediately killed or imprisoned for it (which the bible condones), you can have sex before marriage without similar punishments. Also women have equal rights, they can work, vote, hold political office etc. And there's also freedom of religion. In short we have freedom, freedoms which the bible would happily have swept away.

Of course you choose to focus on the downsides, but we've come a long way.

It would be interesting if it was possible to realistically compare the basic pros and cons of the social structures -- and by no means ignoring the benefits of modern technology, which by rights should have put Mankind into a Utopian Life-Style today.

To be perectly frank we'd likely have advanced more towards a utopia if it wasn't for religion denouncing and imprisoning scientists in the early days. We'd be a century more advanced now if that hadn't happened, maybe more.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I follow a biblical christian approach to life by choice. My wife folows one by faith.

Heres waht my bible tels me my life with my wife should be like.

First love her as you love yourself. (And thus treat her as you would want be treated)

As i want to be treated with respect, care, love, responsibility and dignity, I treat my wife like this too.

Second. It says, "cleave unto her and take no thers." Ive done that since i met her 40 years ago. And she would not ebven think about doing otherwise . What is more, ive done it in my heart and mind as well as with my body .

Third it tells me to protect her and to provide for her. Ive always done that. It tells me to respect and accomodate her strengths and weaknesses. It alos tells me that two people pulling in tandem can plow a straighter line and achieve more than those "unequally yoked."

And so we have a cooperative partnership utilising our strenghts, and minimising our weaknesses. Te bible recognises the need of women for a home for children and for a way to express the intrisic nature of femininity, just a sit does for the differnt bilogicla nature of men. And so our home is my wifes domain She chose not to work after marriage so that an unmarried woman could have her job and income.

Instead she creates a haven ofgreat beauty rest and comfort for me to come to it is neat spotless and welcoming with flowers on the table every day . I do all the cooking because to be hones tI am better at it than she is. I was brought up cooking by my mother and grandmather, while my wife ran free in her farm paddocks and was a little tomboy. But if i was in charge of the house or the budget, both would soon be in a mess.

I can no more conceive of hurting my wife than hurting myself (and i would never hurt myself) I could never coerce or otherwise force her to do anything (including having sex with me.) The bible is clear about relationships betwen people and betwen husband and wife You dont compel another human being, either overtly or covertly, without exceptionally good reasons to do so (eg to protect them)

Perhaps as a consequence of the way we live, we have been happily married for 36 years. As i observe my religious and atheist friends and relatives I notice some correlations, but its not all about religious beliefs per se. Its about more basic ethics and moralities which are expressed in the bible, but also found elsewhere. Our value as a human being, our rights and responsibilities, what form our relationships takes (dependent authoritarian democratic or other)

Divorce and separation is almost non existent in our families, going back hundreds of years. I suspect that this is because certain ideas about; behaviour, rights, resposnibilities, and respect but particularly about the nature and power of love, have been passed down and across, to suceeding generations of people.

My father taught me, explicitly and implicitly in his own relationships with them, how to love a woman and how to treat her . I have no problem "marrying", biblical precepts, his example, and common sense, to create the relationship in our marriage.i tis interesting The bible says a wife should obey her husband ( and there were good reasons for that in those times, but it also makes clear tha ta huasband CANNOT simply command a wife to do something wrong, harmful, unloving, etc without breaking the other more basic and underlying rules of relationship set by god.

Society got this wrong for a long while. But i have always understood i can not have sex with my wife (for example) without her willing consent, under the terms and conditions of the bible.

The problem is that many christian men (along with many non christian ones) do not attempt to meet these basic conditions of marriage, about love, protection, care etc. And too many women have been socialised into a lack of respect for themselves, which makes them easy prey, (in marriage and out of it) for men.

Even if i wanted to command my wife to do something she felt wrong, she is a strong and independent woman who would say No. Submissiveness does not extend to allowing youe husband to coerce you to do what is wrong. Her faith and religion builds on an already formidable strength of character, and liberates her from such bondage.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, there is a difference between the two. However history shows that when it comes to any form of social change, that difference doesn't matter. If it is in the bible (and done by the Christians/Hebrews of the day), it is considered acceptable. As I see it, you can split Christians into two basic groups: ones which display common sense and willing to accept social change despite what the bible my say and Christians that hold the bible as all important and will resist any social change that isn't approved by the bible, regardless of whose rights they trample over and who they hurt in the process.

The importaant thing is that we are living in 21st century society, NOT ancient Hebrew society. Christians need to be more willing to see and accept that vast difference, rather than clinging onto things that are best left in the past.

If something is unbiblical, then it is unbiblical. In terms of a secular society that doesn't follow the Christian Bible, I'm happy to let them do whatever they want. But society doesn't determine biblical morals. The fact is that it is not a command to marry a slave (for example), it's descriptive of what happened. Something else like sex before marriage, that's a biblical law and is prescriptive - don't have sex before marriage. The fact that secular society thinks it is ok to have sex before marriage bears no relevance to that law.

To be perectly frank we'd likely have advanced more towards a utopia if it wasn't for religion denouncing and imprisoning scientists in the early days. We'd be a century more advanced now if that hadn't happened, maybe more.

That's questionable. If it weren't for the "scientists" of the early days, people like Galileo would have never been persecuted to begin with - Galileo suggested a heliocentric universe and the Church didn't even blink. It wasn't until he became a threat to other scientists and they could no longer refute him, so they tried to silence him another way in order to protect their own precious status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If something is unbiblical, then it is unbiblical. In terms of a secular society that doesn't follow the Christian Bible, I'm happy to let them do whatever they want. But society doesn't determine biblical morals. The fact is that it is not a command to marry a slave (for example), it's descriptive of what happened. Something else like sex before marriage, that's a biblical law and is prescriptive - don't have sex before marriage. The fact that secular society thinks it is ok to have sex before marriage bears no relevance to that law.

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.

'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.

That's questionable. If it weren't for the "scientists" of the early days, people like Galileo would have never been persecuted to begin with - Galileo suggested a heliocentric universe and the Church didn't even blink. It wasn't until he became a threat to other scientists and they could no longer refute him, so they tried to silence him another way in order to protect their own precious status.

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

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

'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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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

No worries, I hope you find it interesting :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

No worries, I hope you find it interesting :tu:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 :tu:

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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :tu:

Then you have a questionable deintition of 'love'.

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.)

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.