Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is, and the Bible draws a distinction in that male Israelites could only be bondservants. You aren't claiming that all slavery that is sanctioned by OT Law in the Bible is indentured servitude though, are you? Because that is false.I believe a 'bondservant' is different than a 'slave'.
I was attempting to point out, and seems impossible, that you have erected a naive misrepresentation of inspiration. I explained your error in detail. And for Pete's sake I can't simplify to the point that you understand it.See? Strawmanning, right there. I didn't "extend someone's argument to the ridiculous" did I? I didn't misrepresent your argument as anything because I didn't talk about it. All I did was point out that you were evading questions.
And you aren't even using the "argument from authority" fallacy correctly either. I didn't state you were an authority (though I think you are stating as much) so I can't "appeal" to you as an authority now can I?
For Pete's sake man. You need to brush up on your fallacies, because you don't know how to use them. And don't dodge questions, it makes it look like you have a weak position.
I am not the OP. I have made no argument. I have made no representation of inspiration, proper or improper. What are you reading that you think I have? What have I said that sounds like an argument to you? You chimed in while I was arguing over whether the NT addressed real slaves or not with another poster. I asked two questions as the first in a series of questions I planned to ask you and you dodged them. I have not made an argument, so I cannot commit fallacies of logic. The argument that you imagined me making is not my argument. I don't know how I can make that clearer to you. You are imagining things, and that is where you err.I was attempting to point out, and seems impossible, that you have erected a naive misrepresentation of inspiration.
Jesus contradicted the OT Law.
I'm going to need to see the Bible verses for these claims. A "no sex until marriage" verse and a "no violence in general" verse.
I know in the OT prostitution was legal under the Law
You can be a slave owner and a Christian, as explicitly stated by the Bible. Is it morally wrong to own another human being as property? Why does the Bible neglect to say that it is?
Sex before marriage is not a bad thing in OT Law, so this verse doesn't say it carries over because there's nothing about sex before marriage to carry over.
The OT is not the place to go to show the Bible has a problem with slavery
QUOTE="Nicholas Deka, post: 70277331, member: 377019"]I am not the OP. I have made no argument. I have made no representation of inspiration, proper or improper. What are you reading that you think I have? What have I said that sounds like an argument to you? You chimed in while I was arguing over whether the NT addressed real slaves or not with another poster. I asked two questions as the first in a series of questions I planned to ask you and you dodged them. I have not made an argument, so I cannot commit fallacies of logic. The argument that you imagined me making is not my argument. I don't know how I can make that clearer to you. You are imagining things, and that is where you err.[/QUOTE]When did all sex outside of marriage start being condemned to interpret it that way though?
Who do you mean by 'we'?
Are there cultures in the world today that still think their women are pretty much chattel?
Is your non-God world so enlightened that you believe there is no 'slavery' or that there is no 'rape'.
Has your enlightened (non-God) world finally gotten over the inferior OT Israelites and the NT Christians and their awkward traits?
Have you ever studied the woman's rights in the Babylonian world, or the cutlure of the Hitites, or the Egyptians or any other culture at the time of the Israelites? Your prospective might change.
I believe a 'bondservant' is different than a 'slave'.
Moralton, Statesota is a fictional city from the television series "Moral Orel". On the surface most Christians will tell you it is filthy blasphemy, but anyone who makes it through the entire three season series actually knows that it's quite pro-Christian.
My avatar is a picture of the main character, Orel Puffington, and I chose that and the tag line because there are a few Christians on these forums who make me feel like I live in that city.
lol. Those are, for the most part, factual statements about what the Bible explicitly says. Now you can argue about the morality and the anachronism of it all, but you can't argue about the legality of what I claimed. The second and third quotes were requests for information, by the way, which is not a claim. RJSS actually won the argument, which I conceded, on the NT stance on rape. We agreed to disagree on the level of vagueness of its stance on extra marital relations though.That's you not making an argument about the immorality of slavery.
That's you not making claims that sex outside of marriage was considered a sin in the OT.
That is you not making claims that prostitution was legal under OT law.
Absolutely. Moral Orel was absolutely pro-real Christian, and anti-fake Christian. It was full of caricatures about crazy, evil, fundamentalist "Christians" who didn't care about what the Bible actually said. But Orel was a good Christian. In fact, I consider every opening sequence to be a testament to the fact that Christianity is real. Remember his dog Bartholomew. Remember the relationship between Moral's pastor and his daughter. And yes, the final episode shows a real Christian family in the end with Orel and his childhood sweetheart (also a real Christian). If anything, it was a testament to trusting Jesus above people. Orel always knew in his heart what was right because he loved Jesus, but he was guided down the wrong path by people who didn't care about Jesus at all.Uh, what? Moral Orel was pro-Christian? Are you referring how he remained Christian into adulthood despite his disillusionment in his father?
Absolutely. Moral Orel was absolutely pro-real Christian, and anti-fake Christian. It was full of caricatures about crazy, evil, fundamentalist "Christians" who didn't care about what the Bible actually said. But Orel was a good Christian. In fact, I consider every opening sequence to be a testament to the fact that Christianity is real. Remember his dog Bartholomew. Remember the relationship between Moral's pastor and his daughter. And yes, the final episode shows a real Christian family in the end with Orel and his childhood sweetheart (also a real Christian). If anything, it was a testament to trusting Jesus above people. Orel always knew in his heart what was right because he loved Jesus, but he was guided down the wrong path by people who didn't care about Jesus at all.
In fact Dino Stamatopoulos (the show's creator) said he just didn't like people who misused the Bible.
Yep, I sarn it. Did you notice it had that just-barely-enough-proof-of-God to make you say, "hmm..."? Like the fact that God stopped Orel "through" his Grandpa (as Orel saw it anyways)? And the stork that was following Orel around?Have you seen "Beforel Orel"? That's what concluded the series. It was quite pro-reason and not pro-Christian. I think the ending of the third season where we see Orel with his childhood sweetheart is a comment on the power of indoctrination: in spite of everything Orel's been through, he remains Christian. "Beforel Orel," despite being a prequel, clashes with the previously established conclusion to the story and suggests that perhaps Orel will find his way out of Christianity one day, the power of indoctrination notwithstanding.
Yep, I sarn it. Did you notice it had that just-barely-enough-proof-of-God to make you say, "hmm..."? Like the fact that God stopped Orel "through" his Grandpa (as Orel saw it anyways)? And the stork that was following Orel around?
Did you ever read A Clockwork Orange? Not the movie, but the book that didn't have the last chapter chopped off? It's like that. Orel is easily programmed. First by his Grandpa to make him question everything, then by his family and community to trust everything they say, but then Orel strikes the happy balance in-between. Just like Alex in A Clockwork Orange starts out all evil, then is programmed too good, then finds the balance in-between. The stupid movie ends on him going back to evil and ruins the whole darn point of the book...
Yeah, give it a "glass half full" look. A very tiny bit of real Christianity shined through despite all the mockery of Moralton's evil residents. I never got the sense the show was mocking Orel.Perhaps I should watch it all again with your interpretation in mind. I never saw it as anything but mockery.
Oh, not just different, that's what makes me so mad. They cut a whole chapter off the end. It would be like ending TLOTR movies with Frodo deciding to keep the ring...I haven't read the book but I have heard the ending is different.
Stanley Kubrick also mutilated the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey to the point that the ending does not even make sense unless you're aware of the actual story. Aside from making the story incomprehensible, he also removed large portions of great ideas from the author.
Just like Alex in A Clockwork Orange starts out all evil, then is programmed too good, then finds the balance in-between. The stupid movie ends on him going back to evil and ruins the whole darn point of the book...
It ends with debauchery, I don't see balance in that. He strikes a deal with the government to be good and keep up the image for them, but there's no reason to think he's learned anything. He was only cured of the treatment they gave him, not of any of his evil tendencies. The debauchery just showed that the treatment didn't have the effect on him that it used to.My impression of the end of the movie is that Alex had found balance, not that he was "going back to evil".
eudaimonia,
Mark
It ends with debauchery, I don't see balance in that.
I didn't see the debauchery as showing him to be evil again, I just saw it as showing he was no longer under the effects of the treatment, and nothing more. It wasn't a fantasy was it? If I remember correctly the government hired that girl as payment for Alex keeping his mouth shut and being a good boy. If Alex dreamed up himself a fantasy of making love to a willing participant, that would be evidence of some change.LOL! It ends with a non-violent sex fantasy. That is balance!
That is the clear message I got out of the ending.
If Alex had become a Victorian prude, I would not have believed that he was cured. I would think that he still suffered some damage from the treatment. If he had a violent sex fantasy, I would not have believed that he had found balance. He would simply have regressed to his old ways. This was in between.
Well I never gave that test any credit for successfully delving into his subconscious so that we know his answers were how he would react in a situation. But even then he talks about smashing people's faces, and putting pocket watches in bad places. He spent a lot of the movie lying to people in charge to get himself out of trouble. He even repeats the "unmuddied lake" line at the end with the government official.Also check out the psych test he is given a little before his sex fantasy. There is a clear message of balance there too. Yes, there are some expressions of violence (for instance, he wants to break the bird eggs), but notably, when speaking for a man who is looking into a woman's bedroom where the woman is alone and naked, he says "No time for the old in-and-out love, I've just come to read the meter". That would normally have been a time for both the in-and-out and the ultra-violence. His subconscious mind actually declines both. The psych test doesn't support either extreme well.
Kubrick had clearly intended a message of balance at the end of the movie. He simply tripped your "debauchery" button.
How will to do it since all mouths will be silenced before HIM?"I can improve upon the morality of the Bible if I copy it word for word and then reverse its position on slavery." -Matt Dillahunty
I believe that when it comes to morality, atheism defeats theism simply by remaining silent. Abrahamic religions contain commandments, concessions and/or encouragements for all of the following:
Abortion Numbers 5:11-31
Rape Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Slavery Leviticus 25:44-46
Genocide 1 Samuel 15:2-3
Mass murder Genesis 7
Compounding the problem is 1 John 3:4, which says,
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
The law is the law of Moses. Therefore, I have my doubts when a Christian claims that certain laws of the Old Testament are a covenant between Jehovah and Israel while other laws in the Old Testament are absolute and/or eternal. If this is your position, please list for us the laws which have expired and I will assume that all other laws are still in effect. If your position on morality is more complicated than that, please elucidate it and we will engage from there.
The identifiable argument of this thread:
1.) If Biblical morality (the law) can be improved, then it is from man and not from God.
2.) The law can be improved.
3.) The law is from man and not from God.
4.) We are not accountable to the law.
5.) Christ's death and resurrection, if they occurred, were pointless.
6.) Christianity is pointless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?