Safe Speed Forums

and while you're doing the same thing, why are some things in there "God's will" and other bits just conveniently ignored?
Ernest's quotes, for instance. Given that the bible says it's ok to do both, why is it wrong to keep a slave but right to vilify homosexuals?
A Catholic priest jokingly told me he was going to hell for ignoring God's first command, "go forth and multiply", but that is actually a good point. Why is it ok for priests to go against God's teaching just because a pope decided that he didn't want to lose the church's trillions to some priestly indiscretion?

No, I dont think it is all crap, I actually think it is a great piece of writing and a guide as to how we should conduct ourselves. I just dont think the language and accuracy should be held up as it is in SOME pulpits as being the last word.
I did CSE Religious Studies at school from choice - not the compulsory 1 hr a week, so I dont think mine is just a casual opinion, I have thought it out and researched it.
I think you would find we are not unalike in out general views, just in the detail (unless you still sacrifice lambs in your home!).

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I think we are poles apart.

The fundamental basis of the bible is the separation from God (Genesis 3) and the Crucifixion and subsequent resurrection of Christ. Everything on the old testament is leading up to the forecast arrival of Jesus. It is the foundation of Christianity.

Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". You can't make it clearer than that can you.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Well, there isn't a short answer to that.

You are correct in that the bible does not outlaw slavery, but neither does it condone it. It does give instructions on how slaves should be treated, and respected.

The context of that, is that the concept of slavery 2000 years ago was somewhat different to the concept of slavery from around 1700 AD onwards.

The word "slavery" today brings to mind images of people in Africa being shipped off to various parts of the empire, for a life of pretty much hell on earth (in most cases at least). All of it was was largely based upon the color of their skin as well.

Slavery 2000 years ago was not based upon tearing people from their homes, and press-ganging them. It was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. People of high social standing could sometimes be the slaves of someone else for one reason or another. It was often an honour to be a slave in some circumstances. (Don't just take my word for all of that, go and take a look on the net). Now, that isn't to say that some people in "slavery" were not abused or taken advantage of. Which is why there are instructions in the bible, to remind people as to the standard that is expected from all of us.

As an aside to all of this, the song Amazing Grace was written by John Newton. He was a slave trader, and did some unspeakable things (to put it mildly). He later became a Christian and was mortified by what he had done.

Hence:

Amazing Grace / how sweet the sound / that saved a wretch like me. / I once was lost and now I'm found / was blind and now I see.

Which kind of sums up the gospel message, in a nutshell.

I'm not really going to go there. As I don't think it's appropriate to go into such detail on this forum.

I will say, that in my opinion, is most definitely WRONG to vilify homosexuals. It is the sexual act that is the problem, and not being homosexual. There are lots of circumstances in the bible where sex is "prohibited", and homosexuality is one of them.



LOL. I like that a lot.

There are not going against God's teaching per se, by not multiplying. They are going against God's law if they indulge in dubious sexual antics.

Paul (not the safespeed one ), does say, that for "priests" being single is perhaps a good idea. So they can concentrate on what they need to do, and not have to worry about a family and relationships at the same time. It is just a suggestion, and is really just common sense. It is also necessary to bear in mind Paul's intended recipients of his letters, which also explains why he says what he does.

The whole strict celebacy thing for priests, is just an edict issued by the church of Rome.

From a purely human view point, some people are quite happy to be celebate (not many I guess). Clearly for the rest of us, celebacy is quite impossible and not desireable either.

that's exactly my point, why are those bits considered to be 'the word' but the bit about slaves (amongst others) not? It's all a little selective, isn't it?

I think it comes back to setting the bible in current cultural context. Which of course is necessary if it is to mean anything to our modern lives. The danger is when it is applied in such a way as to reinforce cultural prejudices from 2000, 1000, 500, 200 years ago, and religious dogma is applied to it: 'I KNOW I'm right about this'. Which brings us back to the original points about 'consecrated ground' and so on.

As I said, the slavery as we think about it today, isn't the definitiion of slavery as per 2000 years ago. Perhaps one way to look at it could be "community service" sentencing we have today, i.e. working for no pay to make payment for what you have done or owe to someone.

That is a totally different thing from raiding villiages, raping and killing in the process, cramming people like sardines into a ship, and taking them thosands of miles to work in appalling conditions (assuming they actually surived the journey that is).



I don't actually think there's anything selective about it. Although I can understand why others think there is.

The language surrounding "sexual activity" (et al) is strong and uncompromising. However there is nothing in there about how we are expected to behave that is detrimental to us, quite the opposite in fact.

Yes exactly.

The situation is exactly the same with "modern" law also. Think of the purpose of speed limits as one very relavent example. The original intentions are correct. Over time though, the technical detail and application of the law, has become far more important than what the law was trying to achieve.

I think you'll find that that was happening even back then.


so is the language surrounding many other things. It's just that people seem choose according to their own personal hang-ups.
The bible tells me I'm allowed to have as many wives as I want. Once again, unless you're a mormon, we seem to be selectively ignoring that bit.

Yup, it probably was. However that doesn't change what the cultrual definition of slavery actually was back then.



I personally believe that there are some absolutes, and I believe many areas of sexual activity fall into that category. I quite accept that others have a different view on that than I do. I also personally do not have any hang-ups in that area, although I know there are plenty that do (and I don't necessarily agree their sentiments either).

The whole purpose of what the "law" is all about becomes lost in the noise. Certain "things" are just not good for us, and very often each of us has a different measure of what those "things" are. Kind of like how a 40 mph speed limit doesn't apply to pedestrians, but it does to a driver. If you want to be a driver you have a different set of rules to match up to. Thankfully, if you break speed limit now, someone else takes the fine and the points (even though you deserve them), so that the law is fully satisifed and you get to go free.

/soap_box_mode_ON

One of the issue these days, is that a very small minority within society are trying to change our perception about what is "normal" by legislating against it. At the same time the things that are really important and critical to our well being are negleected. So good becomes bad, and bad becomes good.

This same thinking makes some very illogical connections, in order to force the agenda through. Current road safety policy is a prime example of that.

I also remember a discussion a few months back on Radio 4. They were talking about the obcenity laws and how various classes of porn were to made be illegal (even on pay TV). So then they said, because we've tighted up on all of that, we can relax stuff in other areas.

Eh? How did they make that connection? So because they've now banned kiddy porn (which was already banned anyway), we can now have more normal porn at 8pm on BBC1? As that stuff is so easy to get access to anyway these days, why should we have to have it shoved in our kid's faces on normal TV?


/soap_box_mode_OFF

And that's just one of MANY papal edicts which have nothing to do with the bible's guidance, and everything to do with meddling for different ends.

Gizmo, do I understand you correctly in assuming you take every passage in the bible as a literal truth?
Or do you accept that in many instances, the characters actions are steered by contemporary cultural thinking, and not God given instruction?

Jesus said "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's." which surely is an acceptance that he acknowledged that the social regimes in which the old testament had been written, had been changed by circumstance.
I would fully expect Him to look favourably on any new development, providing it's purpose was not the furtherment of evil, and to be similarly understanding of the changes brought about by modern technologies.
I am a blood donor - and blood transfusions save lives. Am I condemned to eternal damnation because of that, or did the old testameent writers simply not understand the mixing of bloods would eventually have an entirely different meaning than theirs?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Interesting choice of verses, since this was an attempt by the pharases to get Jesus to stumble into a trap. A bit ironic I think

If he accepts Caesar's authority, then he denies his own teaching, not to say his own God. But if he rejects Caesar, as he's tempted, then he's given his enemies evidence to take to the Romans, which is precisely what they wanted. Jesus escapes from the trap by asking them to show him a penny. His responce was ambiguous rather than acknowledging the emperor, Jesus subtly disparages "the things which be Ceasar's" by comparison to "the things which be God's," yet he does so in a way that lets him slip through his enemies' grasp

"And they could not take hold of his words before the people: and they marvelled at his answer, and held their peace."

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

He neatly divides His own teachings regarding the spiritual world, from the day to day necessities of the world in which we live.

We now live in a world where it is accepted that women work. The bible stories are set in a social climate where women NEVER work, other than to mnd the home. Many of the teachings therefore slant towards women being barred from working, and only a fool would have tried to say otherwise at that time. Now times are different, should we slavishly follow the bible and stop women working, or accept that we live in a different world?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Where ?

Have you tried reading the book of Ruth?

You do seem to be coming up with some bizarre arguments.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Yup.

The origins of purgatory fall into that same bracket also.



Yes, I agree. He was making a very valid point. I.e. Give to the "government" what they ask of you, and also give to "me" what I ask of you. The two are not incompatible. The other point in there, is that "earthly" leaders are to be respected.



Some of what is written, does obviously directly relate in terms of society at the time. However, I don't think there is anything to forbid a woman from working.

There is of course this whole recent issue about women becomming ordained Ministers in the C Of E. Now then, what is actually said is that leadership can be male or femail, but "headship" is to be male - or at least that is how I understand it. So there is nothing wrong whatsoever with women being in positions of leadership.

Most of what Paul wrote on the whole subject, was to groups of people that were sometimes in a very confused state, and that were in most cases earnestly looking for guidance and some clarity.