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

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?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

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.

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.
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

I think a lot has to do with how children are raised by their families. If parents are not involved enough or show proper example and teach them what is right or wrong they will not know what the correct way is and what is right from wrong.Teach the children with love and particularly to respect themselves and others. My guess is a lot of young girls equate sex with love because they do not know the difference nor do they have self worth. The problem is people are not born with morals. It is taught to them by the way they are raised, the people they choose as friends and the way media and movies show moral values. I have been married for 35 years, and I believe it is easier to 'divorce" than to work out ones problems. And never stay together for the 'sake of the kids' as most of the time the kids are used as pawns in getting back at one parent or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

That creates a problem. We live in a secular society, NOT a purely christian one. As such, christians that are 'on' all the times can use biblical morality to justify being against equal rights and certain freedoms that are afforded to others, or make them come across as judgemental fools.

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.

I never understand that reasoning, that god watches them every moments. While they sleep. While they shower. While they go to the bathroom. At an even more basic level, I've yet to see a reasoning for WHY god would even bother doing such a thing considering how small we are in the big picture.

Christians, however, seem to think that privacy doesn't stop there, that it extends to fellow christians/congregations. Those christians are not bound by any such 'oath of conidentiality' and, like schoolchildren, while flagrantly violate a person's privacy to their heart's content.

I've never had such a voice. All the decisions I make, right or wrong, have been my own. Same with my values/ethics.

I have seen plenty of religions that all claim to have their values and ethics straight from god/gods and yet every time those values and ethics have multiple things which are questionable at best. So while trusting a higher power for your morals may sound like a good idea, you have to really stop and think about them. I have yet to see an instance of a deity that doesn't have some inbuilt contradiction (like the christian god being loving but is against love) or having something which is questionable morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='shadowhive' timestamp='1334232473' post='4262946']

That creates a problem. We live in a secular society, NOT a purely christian one. As such, christians that are 'on' all the times can use biblical morality to justify being against equal rights and certain freedoms that are afforded to others, or make them come across as judgemental fools.

Thats not an issue about being always on. It is an issue about first difernces in ethicla beliefs and standards and second a differnce i belief about the comaprative rights of individuals compared with those of society. If you are an anti whaler then you can become quite tactless and confrontational and do some things others would not approve of.

Christians have a right to argue their case(s) as does anyone but society will make the laws and respond in amore general sense Personally I hold to an individuals right to live their life AS LONG AS that right does not weaken or damage the social fabric which protects is all, or more specifically harm other individuals And so on the gay issue i argue for fully equal rights in law for gay people but relaise that their innate differnces will create problems/challenges and differences for them and for others. But we've covered this before. Being gay, or black, or female, is not the critical identifying attribute of anyone. Being human is.

I never understand that reasoning, that god watches them every moments. While they sleep. While they shower. While they go to the bathroom. At an even more basic level, I've yet to see a reasoning for WHY god would even bother doing such a thing considering how small we are in the big picture.

It doesnt require a reason. Does our conscience require a reason to be self aware all the time? If god is as I find him to be, then it just is God is connected to us and to our thoughts and feelings. He exists within us, so of course, just like our own self awareness he is conscious of us all the time. He doesnt need a reason. It is built into his form and function. I am with me in all those instances and so thus is god. But god also exists externally to me, and so he is also watching over me when i sleep or am unconscious.
Christians, however, seem to think that privacy doesn't stop there, that it extends to fellow christians/congregations. Those christians are not bound by any such 'oath of conidentiality' and, like schoolchildren, while flagrantly violate a person's privacy to their heart's content.
They cant read another's mind (with a few exceptions) :innocent: Unless i tell another what I am thinking or feeling they cant know. But god does. Thus they are not competent to judge me nor I them. But god is. We cant hide form him. But also ibve never encountered a christian congregation like that My own little town is filled with such people, few of whom are christians; but mostly their interest in others is a reflection of genuine concern. That concern ismade manifest when someone is hurt or loses everything as we once did.
I've never had such a voice. All the decisions I make, right or wrong, have been my own. Same with my values/ethics.

You've never had an inner voice of reason, of ethics or morality? Youve never had or recognised your own stream of consciousness or dialogue by which you form views decide ethical standards etc? You've never heard yourself say, "I must not steal, because taking form others harms them?"

I find that hard to believe, although, with humanity, nothing is impossible. Perhaps you have never been explicitly taught how to think or reason in this way, or perhaps you havent recognised how you got those values and ethics you call your own, from.

I wasn't talking about a voice from, god i was talking, as an atheist, how my inner voice of conscience, reason, logic and rational, thought informed me what was right and wrong, and why that was so. I could not "switch off" that conscience or voice, and I still cannot.. So even an atheist has no privacy from the voice of right and reason, which is a part of their self aware sapience.

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.
I have seen plenty of religions that all claim to have their values and ethics straight from god/gods and yet every time those values and ethics have multiple things which are questionable at best.

So while trusting a higher power for your morals may sound like a good idea, you have to really stop and think about them. I have yet to see an instance of a deity that doesn't have some inbuilt contradiction (like the christian god being loving but is against love) or having something which is questionable morality.

I cant speak for others. I was taught, learned, and developed, my ethical and moral beliefs values and foundations as an atheist secular humanist. God just reinforced them and made them even more imperative.

I dont see any contradiction in love in christianity, although i do see humanss having some different percetions about the nature of love and how we should treat those we love as ourselves. For example if we love another as ourselves do we allow them to harm them selves when we would not allow ourselves to come to harm, or do we prevent them. ASimovs laws of robotics represented and reflected the dilemmas posed in this sort of question.

What is the higher priority? To keep a fellow being from harm or allowing them to act as they wish, knowing that action will bring harm? Should I take a mate's car keys from him when he is very drunk and wants to drive home, or should I allow him to drive when he insists? Personally i do what is right based as best i can on the principle of loving others as my self. If that makes a mate angry, so be it. I have to do what i have to do, because i love him.

In christianty all relationships should be based on love. But what we do, based on that love, is not always so easy to decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thats not an issue about being always on. It is an issue about first difernces in ethicla beliefs and standards and second a differnce i belief about the comaprative rights of individuals compared with those of society. If you are an anti whaler then you can become quite tactless and confrontational and do some things others would not approve of.

Christians have a right to argue their case(s) as does anyone but society will make the laws and respond in amore general sense Personally I hold to an individuals right to live their life AS LONG AS that right does not weaken or damage the social fabric which protects is all, or more specifically harm other individuals And so on the gay issue i argue for fully equal rights in law for gay people but relaise that their innate differnces will create problems/challenges and differences for them and for others. But we've covered this before. Being gay, or black, or female, is not the critical identifying attribute of anyone. Being human is.

Being human is the attribute of everyone, but as you yourself pointed out, christians see a connection with god as a defining aspect of being human and so act accordingly.

Everyone is an individual. While their unifying attribute is that they're human, other attributes are cruical to them and key to who they are. Certain attributes may 'create problems' but these problems are things that we, as a society, should work to overcome.

It doesnt require a reason. Does our conscience require a reason to be self aware all the time? If god is as I find him to be, then it just is God is connected to us and to our thoughts and feelings. He exists within us, so of course, just like our own self awareness he is conscious of us all the time. He doesnt need a reason. It is built into his form and function. I am with me in all those instances and so thus is god. But god also exists externally to me, and so he is also watching over me when i sleep or am unconscious.

If god is an external entity, then god has a 'reason' for this. No living thing does things without reason. Yet god just... does, with no reason at all? I dunno, it just seems too strange to me.

They cant read another's mind (with a few exceptions) :innocent: Unless i tell another what I am thinking or feeling they cant know. But god does. Thus they are not competent to judge me nor I them. But god is. We cant hide form him. But also ibve never encountered a christian congregation like that My own little town is filled with such people, few of whom are christians; but mostly their interest in others is a reflection of genuine concern. That concern ismade manifest when someone is hurt or loses everything as we once did.

They might not read another's mind, but they don't have to. They always seem too eager to tear a member apart for any flaw that they may find them too have.

I often hear things along those lines, but often it's just words. Christians often say they're against judgement, but are all too willing to do it if given the chance.

You've never had an inner voice of reason, of ethics or morality? Youve never had or recognised your own stream of consciousness or dialogue by which you form views decide ethical standards etc? You've never heard yourself say, "I must not steal, because taking form others harms them?"

I find that hard to believe, although, with humanity, nothing is impossible. Perhaps you have never been explicitly taught how to think or reason in this way, or perhaps you havent recognised how you got those values and ethics you call your own, from.

I wasn't talking about a voice from, god i was talking, as an atheist, how my inner voice of conscience, reason, logic and rational, thought informed me what was right and wrong, and why that was so. I could not "switch off" that conscience or voice, and I still cannot.. So even an atheist has no privacy from the voice of right and reason, which is a part of their self aware sapience.

I've not had a voice. I have my own ethics and values, but largely I've developed them myself. The basic part of my morality is if something harms someone, I don't do it. Did that come from god? Not that I've seen.

I cant speak for others. I was taught, learned, and developed, my ethical and moral beliefs values and foundations as an atheist secular humanist. God just reinforced them and made them even more imperative.

I dont see any contradiction in love in christianity, although i do see humanss having some different percetions about the nature of love and how we should treat those we love as ourselves. For example if we love another as ourselves do we allow them to harm them selves when we would not allow ourselves to come to harm, or do we prevent them. ASimovs laws of robotics represented and reflected the dilemmas posed in this sort of question.

What is the higher priority? To keep a fellow being from harm or allowing them to act as they wish, knowing that action will bring harm? Should I take a mate's car keys from him when he is very drunk and wants to drive home, or should I allow him to drive when he insists? Personally i do what is right based as best i can on the principle of loving others as my self. If that makes a mate angry, so be it. I have to do what i have to do, because i love him.

In christianty all relationships should be based on love. But what we do, based on that love, is not always so easy to decide.

I think the issue then becomes one of harm. Take your example, taking a drunken friend's car keys so he doesn't drive. Now it's an obvious that driving drunk isn't safe. You can get into an accident and harm yourself or others, possibly even killing someone. So the harm there is real and provable. He might be angry with you at the time, but once he'd sober up he'd be able to see why you did it.

Now with christians, their definition of harm is much more vague. It's not about provable harm like your example is, it's about a vague concept of 'spirititual harm'. Spiritual harm can't be proved or measured. Their actions to prevent this harm often result in other harm to people that we can prove, under the guise of being loving. At the end of the day the other forms of harm matter far less than spiritual harm to them, when really it's the other way around.

Really I don't think christians ae terribly capable of loving others, because their primary concern seems to be manifesting that love via biblical morality and not caring who they harm along the way.

Edited by shadowhive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Matrix,

I am a Christian who reads my Bible every day. While I realize that many of the things you mention did happen in the old testament, you are misjudging the book as a whole. you're taking a lot of different "examples" and grouping them together to form a flawed opinion.

You were a Bible believer, you say. Possibly you didn't spend enough time reading it. I am still learning new things from the book and have been corrected many times over my life as some churches have an agenda, so they misinterpret scripture (sometimes out of ignorance as well). Sometimes I just drew an assumption that was wrong.

I've found that the only way to study is to look at it word for word and use a good concordance while you do.

This is JMO and I'm not intending to call you out or label you a liar. Misunderstanding the Bible is commonplace, especially among nonbelievers. I'm not going to argue over it, I am just hoping that maybe those who misunderstand the book would sit down in a proper setting and go thru it as a study. If something looks wrong, look it up and check the meaning or translation.

Edited by jbondo

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.