pop morality

[Drich]

Jesus did not change the Law He completed it. Meaning he expanded it to include thought, and to provide atonement that would cover all sin...

Since jesus is god and of the same mind as his alter ego god, then the law was from himself as well. He couldn't change his mind as god without admitting to error and he couldn't help but think the same godly thoughts as god. Saying jesus completed the law has no meaning beyond saying god completed the law unless you say that his laws were imperfect or incomplete. Sin was defiance from jesus just the same. Furthermore one can't atone to oneself.
It's just such a silly story.

The law was complete when it was issued. 'we' (as Jesus pointed out) just did not have the understanding/capacity to understand the Law and it's intent when it was initially issued. When Jesus 'completed the law He did not change, He simply explained it.

[Jenny A]

@ Dritch

Just to be clear, what I'm hearing from you is this:

1. All morallity is popular (relative) morality.
2. God's law as defined by Jesus, is purposely designed to be unfollowable by mortal man.
3. Those portions of god's laws that appear immoral (like slavery, rape, aborting the babies of unfaithful wives, discriminating against bastards, gneocide, etc.) are good because they have helped humanity in some way.
4. The punishment for all violations of god's law is enternal damnation.
5. All violations of god's laws are equally bad.
6. Violations of god's laws are debts to god.
7. Whether other human beings are hurt by your actions is not relevent to whether the action is a sin.
8. To be rightious is to seek atonement from god.
9. God's law is objective.
10. Morality is bad because it changes with time and place.
11. Atheists prefer morality because it's less strict than god's law.
12. Jews are an exception in that they can follow OT God's law to the letter instead of the impossible NT standard and that's OK with god.

Is that correct? If not, which of the above is wrong? I'm not asking for the whys. Just trying to see if I understand your position.

[Drich]

What's going on in this thre-

Oh, Drich and the rofl-smiley emoji.  Nevermind.

If I only had know that the emogi was all it took, I would have saved us both some time.

[Drich]

Heard some analysis on POTUS (Sirius/XM) yesterday regarding the relgiousites turn about on 'moral' candidates like Huckabee and Santorum and their moving to support candidates with less moral takes things, specifically citing Trump's divorces and remarriages and his boastful writings regarding bedding other men's wives.

It all boils down to pragmatism, if a presidential candidate doesn't look to have the wherewithal to prevail in a general election, personal morals or not, they will not be supported.

I don't recall Jesus doing any parables regarding pragmatism, perhaps these Christers have access to secret gospels or such that gives them guidance in this surprising direction.

I'd think they would rather vote for the morally right candidate (as per their definition) than to ever sidle up to a reprobate such as Trump, but it really looks like SOMETHING has changed in the Christian world this election cycle, and it has CHANGED for reasons having to do with political expediency rather than Salvation.

you do know Cruz won the Iowa caucus right???

[Nihilist Virus]

1. "Jesus did not change the Law He completed it. Meaning he expanded it to include thought, and to provide atonement that would cover all sin."

2. The law allows for rape, pedophilia, and fornication; also it expressly consents to slavery

3. Jesus condones these things

4. These things are part of God's moral absolutes

Let's see that backpedaling now.

Instead of going back lets push forward and properly establish the condoning you claim... Please by all means provide us with book Chapter and verse.

When I say the law allows for rape, I am saying that there is no commandment, "Thou shalt not rape."  Period.  Does not exist.  Rape is only punishable if it is accompanied with some form of adultery, which is to say that rape and consensual sex were indistinguishable to the lawmakers.

In Deuteronomy 22, which you wanted me to read for some reason (most Christians try to pretend this chapter doesn't exist), if you look at verses 28-29, there is no real punishment for rape.  None.  The "punishment" is not because of the rape aspect but because the man took the virginity of the father's daughter, so he has to pay THE FATHER.  Nothing is done for the woman except that she is "allowed" to marry her rapist (???) or perhaps choose not to, and if she chooses to (???) then he cannot divorce her.  But she basically has to marry the piece of shit because otherwise her father will lose the 50 shekels of silver and also any future dowry because she's "shamed" (???), which may or may not mean she'll get kicked out of her home, and on top of that the virgin-obsessed Jews would not want to marry her, and in that patriarchal society she'd be worthless without a man.  That is the system your God came up with.  So please, let me know, what do you think will happen when the rapist marries her?  Society is ENCOURAGING his behavior by putting him under the same roof with his victim.  He's gonna rape her at his whim for the rest of her life.  This is what God ordained... which means Jesus ordained this, because of the trinity.

As far as pedophilia goes, there is no mention for the age of consent.  You sent me on the wild goose chase in Deuteronomy 22, saying that this is where the age of consent is given (because I had previously mentioned that pedophilia is not a sin).  I can't tell you where pedophilia is NOT mentioned...

As for fornication, as long as it is between two people who are not married, and as long as the woman never marries afterward, I do not find that it is forbidden by the law.  But please, by all means, put that claim to the fire to see if it's valid.   I don't want to keep making false accusations against the Bible because there are already so many damn things wrong with it that there's no need for false accusations.

So as far as I see it, your God allows for the raping of babies... as long as, of course, it's heterosexual.  The SPECIFIC laws do not even mention pedophilia... ever... not even once.

[Drich]

@ Dritch

Just to be clear, what I'm hearing from you is this:

1.  All morallity is popular (relative) morality.

Yes

2.  God's law as defined by Jesus, is purposely designed to be unfollowable by mortal man.  

yes

3. Those portions of god's laws that appear immoral (like slavery, rape, aborting the babies of unfaithful wives, discriminating against bastards, gneocide, etc.) are good because they have helped humanity in some way.

Not good or bad they are neutral, and were or are necessary.

4.  The punishment for all violations of god's law is enternal damnation.

All meaning Any yes, Damnation meaning Hell/eternal seperation/2nd death yes

5. All violations of god's laws are equally bad.

Yes

6. Violations of god's laws are debts to god.

More or less, they are also describe as being a debt you accumilate that is yet to be paid.
(as in the wages of sin is Death.)

7. Whether other human beings are hurt by your actions is not relevent to whether the action is a sin.

All pain we identify is not sinful, no. On the other hand God identifies other 'pain' we cause one another and identifies it as sin. like divorce.

8. To be rightious is to seek atonement from god.

Only God is righteous. We seek atonement to cloth ourselves in the righteousness of Christ.

9. God's law is objective.

God's law is based on His will, and therefore does not change.

10. Morality is bad because it changes with time and place.

No, All I am saying is morality is a non stable standard and to judge yourself by it or anything else is foolish, because it can be literally made to say anything is right to wrong.

11. Atheists prefer morality because it's less strict than god's law.

No because they can justify anything they want with it.

12. Jews are an exception in that they can follow OT God's law to the letter instead of the impossible NT standard and that's OK with god.

No I refer to OT jews following the law. Their are no more OT jews, that means non are exempt. Even modern day Jews do not follow the practices of OT jews, even the most devout.

Is that correct?  If not, which of the above is wrong?  I'm not asking for the whys.  Just trying to see if I understand your position.

:thumbsup:

[downbeatplumb]

Heard some analysis on POTUS (Sirius/XM) yesterday regarding the relgiousites turn about on 'moral' candidates like Huckabee and Santorum and their moving to support candidates with less moral takes things, specifically citing Trump's divorces and remarriages and his boastful writings regarding bedding other men's wives.

It all boils down to pragmatism, if a presidential candidate doesn't look to have the wherewithal to prevail in a general election, personal morals or not, they will not be supported.

I don't recall Jesus doing any parables regarding pragmatism, perhaps these Christers have access to secret gospels or such that gives them guidance in this surprising direction.

I'd think they would rather vote for the morally right candidate (as per their definition) than to ever sidle up to a reprobate such as Trump, but it really looks like SOMETHING has changed in the Christian world this election cycle, and it has CHANGED for reasons having to do with political expediency rather than Salvation.

you do know Cruz won the Iowa caucus right???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0BuPgrBwHU

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='1192640' dateline='1454425248']
When I say the law allows for rape, I am saying that there is no commandment, "Thou shalt not rape."  Period.  Does not exist.  Rape is only punishable if it is accompanied with some form of adultery, which is to say that rape and consensual sex were indistinguishable to the lawmakers.

What are you talking about? their is only one pretext in which sex is permitted.
That's in a sanctified marriage. "That there shall be no harlot (in Israel); that is, that there shall be no intercourse with a woman, without previous marriage with a deed of marriage and formal declaration of marriage (Deut. 23:18) "

Again "thou shall not rape" is not needed when "thou shal not have sex unless your married has been established."

In Deuteronomy 22, which you wanted me to read for some reason (most Christians try to pretend this chapter doesn't exist), if you look at verses 28-29, there is no real punishment for rape. None. 

what are you talking about? Their is, one had to marry and care for this woman for the rest of his life. No divorce. and their was a fine of 1 years gross wages of silver for skilled labor. pretty hefty fine... So what happens when he could pay? Dude became the Family's slave. How do you think the son in law was treated? do you think that maybe the rules for beating a slave was pushed in those first few weeks?

So from your ignorant position theirs no punishment, but from a very simply understanding you've got a forced marriage, Hefty fine which would result in slavery for up to 1 to 3 years depending on how the raper was skilled.
which means potentially years of beatings.

Where do you get the idea that their wasn't any punishment? Because their isn't a thou shalt not? God knows by turning this guy over to the family and let the natural order of event play out both the family and the raper will have the account settled.

Beside I'm sure far more raped women in OT times got a far stronger sense of justice than some sterile prison sentence.

 The "punishment" is not because of the rape aspect but because the man took the virginity of the father's daughter, so he has to pay THE FATHER.

Dumbest most short sighted thing I've ever read.

 Nothing is done for the woman except that she is "allowed" to marry her rapist (???) or perhaps choose not to, and if she chooses to (???) then he cannot divorce her.  But she basically has to marry the piece of shit because otherwise her father will lose the 50 shekels of silver and also any future dowry because she's "shamed" (???), which may or may not mean she'll get kicked out of her home, and on top of that the virgin-obsessed Jews would not want to marry her, and in that patriarchal society she'd be worthless without a man.  That is the system your God came up with.  So please, let me know, what do you think will happen when the rapist marries her?  Society is ENCOURAGING his behavior by putting him under the same roof with his victim.  He's gonna rape her at his whim for the rest of her life.  This is what God ordained... which means Jesus ordained this, because of the trinity.

I stand corrected. This is the dumbest thing... Maybe you honestly did not know then it would be not the dumbest but the most ignorant short sighted thing... Either way think before you speak or at least ask a question.
I gave you book chapter and verse, and right there on page it says 50 shekels of silver.. How much is a shekel? should have been your first question. A shekel was a measure of weight, later coins were minted in 3/10 of an oz of silver. depending on skill level one shekel equaled between 4 days and 10 days labor.. On average about a weeks worth of Hard work (6 days) it all depended on how the one paying sized up the job, and skil level of the worker. Now adays that 1 shekel is about 1000 dollars/ a week's worth of work. x50= 50K How does a 50K dollar fine stack up against the restitution made today? If today one was absolutely made to pay this or sold into slavery to pay this debt do you think rape would be as big as a problem it is now? then couple on the woman's expenses for the rest of her life.

As far as pedophilia goes, there is no mention for the age of consent.  You sent me on the wild goose chase in Deuteronomy 22, saying that this is where the age of consent is given (because I had previously mentioned that pedophilia is not a sin).  I can't tell you where pedophilia is NOT mentioned...

Not by name that is a modern term. Again like marriage their was no need for a direct command because the existing law protected them.

One could not marry a child. She could be betrothed but not married, and again one could not have sex unless they were married deu 23:18

Again no need for a thou shalt not if one does not meet the parameters for sanctified sex.

As for fornication, as long as it is between two people who are not married, and as long as the woman never marries afterward, I do not find that it is forbidden by the law.  But please, by all means, put that claim to the fire to see if it's valid.   I don't want to keep making false accusations against the Bible because there are already so many damn things wrong with it that there's no need for false accusations.

So as far as I see it, your God allows for the raping of babies... as long as, of course, it's heterosexual.  The SPECIFIC laws do not even mention pedophilia... ever... not even once.

again, Silence is not permission. Their is silence because the laws stopped the sex before it even got to specific perversions.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Heard some analysis on POTUS (Sirius/XM) yesterday regarding the relgiousites turn about on 'moral' candidates like Huckabee and Santorum and their moving to support candidates with less moral takes things, specifically citing Trump's divorces and remarriages and his boastful writings regarding bedding other men's wives.

It all boils down to pragmatism, if a presidential candidate doesn't look to have the wherewithal to prevail in a general election, personal morals or not, they will not be supported.

I don't recall Jesus doing any parables regarding pragmatism, perhaps these Christers have access to secret gospels or such that gives them guidance in this surprising direction.

I'd think they would rather vote for the morally right candidate (as per their definition) than to ever sidle up to a reprobate such as Trump, but it really looks like SOMETHING has changed in the Christian world this election cycle, and it has CHANGED for reasons having to do with political expediency rather than Salvation.

Remember the Southern Baptists.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Since jesus is god and of the same mind as his alter ego god, then the law was from himself as well. He couldn't change his mind as god without admitting to error and he couldn't help but think the same godly thoughts as god. Saying jesus completed the law has no meaning beyond saying god completed the law unless you say that his laws were imperfect or incomplete. Sin was defiance from jesus just the same. Furthermore one can't atone to oneself.
It's just such a silly story.

The law was complete when it was issued. 'we' (as Jesus pointed out) just did not have the understanding/capacity to understand the Law and it's intent when it was initially issued. When Jesus 'completed the law He did not change, He simply explained it.

The Bible says that the law came from angels.  It seems that God/Jesus was sleeping when the angels made up all of those rules.