It was more than that. The animals ignored him, he became unsuited to the wilds right after his shag. That's why he agreed to go into Uruk in the first place. Then he went to Pret-a-Manger and became a real citizen. — fdrake
Why? You have provided no explanation or reasons for why this should be the case. — Agustino
Why not? If this was the case in all other stories between Jesus and the Pharisees in the Bible, shouldn't this be the case here too? — Agustino
The good Samaritan was about helping someone in need, it wasn't about ignoring immorality. — Agustino
How pathetic that you attempt to suggest that the interpretation is wrong, because some people who believe it also happen to believe angels appear among us as aliens :snicker: - very smart. What's the name of this logical fallacy again?Man, you were sporting a biblical interpretation that's mainly promoted by evangelicals who believe angels appear among us as aliens. This is a serious thread? — frank
I haven't ruled out that possibility, but I prefer interpreting this parable in the light of the other ones. If we see that the other encounters with the Pharisees bear a certain structure, then we ought to choose the interpretation which bears the same structure in this case, and not another one. Again, this has to do with faithfully interpreting a text.Why have you ruled out the possibility (well, I think it's more than just a possibility, given other parables about what kind of person Jesus was) that this was a parable to illustrate that there are more important things than mindlessly obeying religious laws which came before Jesus. — Sapientia
Was Abraham willing to sacrifice Isaac when God required it?Did Abraham mindlessly obey and sacrifice Isaac? No. — Sapientia
So if one is to interpret ad literam, there would be no laws, because all laws are made by us, who are sinners, to punish other sinners. That makes no sense, it's not a sensible interpretation. Why do you reckon this interpretation makes sense? Do you think that we cannot judge others because we are also sinners? If we cannot judge others, how are we to go about living, since living requires judging others (ie, is he going to steal from me if I hire him, etc.)."Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is clearly a precaution to look inside yourself and consider your own sinful nature before judging, condemning, and punishing another for having sinned. — Sapientia
How pathetic that you attempt to suggest that the interpretation is wrong, because some people who believe it also happen to believe angels appear among us as aliens :snicker: - very smart. What's the name of this logical fallacy again? — Agustino
First, it's not a fringe interpretation. You can check out multiple sources, I gave you another source completely different from the one you suggested.It's the lunatic fringe interpretation — frank
First, it's not a fringe interpretation. You can check out multiple sources, I gave you another source completely different from the one you suggested.
Second, even if it was a fringe interpretation, that doesn't mean that it is wrong. You haven't illustrated why it is wrong. So either engage in argument or be silent please.
Saying that it is "lunatic" or "fringe" isn't an argument. — Agustino
It's not meant to have any bearing. I haven't brought religion in as an argument to criminalize adultery. You have said that "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" as an argument against criminalizing adultery. I have explained to you that (1) you took that phrase out of context, and (2) there is no indication in the Bible that sinners cannot (or should not) judge other sinners - indeed, the whole Old Testament and the laws of Moses involved sinners judging other sinners. And even in the New Testament, when Paul was writing to other Christian communities, it involved judging other Christians, even though Paul was still a sinner. Third, I don't see why a religious command should necessarily be applicable to our social law. If we were to follow the BS you're saying ad literam and out of context, then we would have no laws. If someone steals your car, forget throwing him in jail! Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. Really? I think your intelligence is better than this.Since it's a fringe interpretation, it has no bearing on your plan to illegalize adultery. The vast majority of Christians embrace the traditional interpretation: that Jesus was teaching forgiveness. So it's not likely that adultery will be illegalized in any predominantly Christian countries. — frank
You have said that "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" as an argument against criminalizing adultery. — Agustino
So if someone steals your car, Jesus would say "First look at your own self, and go after the guy only if you are without sin"? Is that the case, according to you?In the US, that passage would be brought up to dismiss any attempt to criminalize adultery (with a light chuckle).
I get that you have a problem with the gospel's depiction of Jesus as a pacifist, apocalyptic prophet. I can't help you with that. — frank
So if someone steals your car, Jesus would say "First look at your own self, and go after the guy only if you are without sin"? Is that the case, according to you? — Agustino
Within specific contexts. Again, you take the injunctions of Christ out of context, and hence you pervert them. You also have:One assumes he would say something like: — frank
I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me. — Luke 19:26
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords. — Revelation 19:10-16
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15 So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16 To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” — John 2:13-16
Does loving your enemy mean not punishing him? No, for loving myself does not mean that I ought not to subject myself to punishment -- even to death. If you had committed a murder, the right Christian thing to do would be to give yourself up to the police and be hanged. — Mere Christianity
The part about Christianity is a deviation from the topic of the thread to answer frank's position.Is it simply to inform us of the authentic way to be Christian or is it to suggest that one must adhere to Christianity as you've described it in order to be an authentic social conservative? — Hanover
The meaning of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified to serve as an eyewitness to her action. — Apologetics Press
13 At this the Pharisees said to him, 'You are testifying on your own behalf; your testimony is not true.'
14 Jesus replied: Even though I am testifying on my own behalf, my testimony is still true, because I know where I have come from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. — The bible
Yeah, oh well, I never knew that eating McDonald's hamburgers involves a breach of contract that harms third parties, and not just yourself. Again - you should try harder, because right now you're just humiliating yourself. — Agustino
This is crap. Yes, obviously the wife does not own herself 100% - that's the purpose of marriage, that each partner owns the other to an extent. If you don't like that, then don't get married.You're arguing about criminalising adultery, your argument is based ultimately on a contemporary Christian understanding of marriage. This is wrong, the Christian understanding of marriage fosters the commodification of women as property. This is how dowries work, expected payments and fundamentally the right of exclusivity to the woman. — fdrake
No, that is not the correct placement since it precludes the possibility of "becoming one flesh". The whole of history, as even Engels showed, is a move away from promiscuity towards monogamy. Read it yourself: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htmOf holy whores and communal wives - respected and necessary positions in a society that places women correctly. — fdrake
And as sexual love is by its nature exclusive – although at present this exclusiveness is fully realized only in the woman – the marriage based on sexual love is by its nature individual marriage. We have seen how right Bachofen was in regarding the advance from group marriage to individual marriage as primarily due to the women. Only the step from pairing marriage to monogamy can be put down to the credit of the men, and historically the essence of this was to make the position of the women worse and the infidelities of the men easier. If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future – then, according to all previous experience,the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.
Sure. Did I say that I think we should punish (legally) promiscuity and polygamy? No. Adultery shouldn't be punished for harming the perpetrator, it should be punished for harming the rest of society.You've stated multiple times in multiple threads that polygamy and adultery harms the perpetrator. — Maw
That is abusive and wrong. It has happened only in cultures where one man ruled over many others from a position of undeniable strength. You see it with rich arabs, the Sultans, etc.Marriage must be allowed to be between a man and many women, if it is to be taken at all. — fdrake
Yes, the people in the Old Testament (and the New) are in many regards deeply flawed.You need only read the Old Testament to see this in its rightful Christian place. You don't even stick to your own holy text without cherrypicking, this is some BS piety you have. — fdrake
False. What's this?They are his exclusive property, but the relationship is not symmetrical, as I'm sure any good Christian or bible scholar well knows. — fdrake
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. — 1 Corinthians 7:3-4
In the work I've linked to, there are chapters that address the whole development of the family, from pre-history to today.Why the hell is your source for an understanding of primordial family relations that predate the focus of Engels' analysis of the monogamous family by centuries Engels? — fdrake
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.