i'm NOT christian... and proud of it!!!

[billvon 2,991]

>Can both interpretations be correct?

For two different people? Yes, they can.

>Is it all just “whatever it means to whomever reads it?”

For the most part, yes.

>Do you apply that same concept to your studies?

Nope. I have different constraints. If I design a product that doesn't meet its specifications, I have done a bad job. Fortunately, there are rules I can use (based on the laws of physics, which are NOT redefinable or changed by translation) which help me do that.

There are no "specifications" for faith. If a person's faith leads him to be able to live a good/fulfilled/moral/(insert your own definition of goodness here) life, then it works for him.

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Quote

But what about sheep-people who want to be told and lead by another, and what if that person is really bad at figuring out the meaning and intent? There are a lot of sheep who can't tell a good shepard from bad.

That happens a lot but what has that got to do with the need for proper and thorough Biblical discernment?

Absolutely nothing - that is totally valid.

I was just pointing out that it happens a lot, and those misguided sheep think they're on the path - are convinced of it in fact - and think everyone else should follow them. How are they to know they are mistaken when they think they know all the Bible has to teach them?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

>Can both interpretations be correct?

For two different people? Yes, they can.

>Is it all just “whatever it means to whomever reads it?”

For the most part, yes.

>Do you apply that same concept to your studies?

Nope. I have different constraints. If I design a product that doesn't meet its specifications, I have done a bad job. Fortunately, there are rules I can use (based on the laws of physics, which are NOT redefinable or changed by translation) which help me do that.

There are no "specifications" for faith. If a person's faith leads him to be able to live a good/fulfilled/moral/(insert your own definition of goodness here) life, then it works for him.

But isn't the outcome measurable in action?

That is, if a person's "faith" leads him to judge and condemn others, while it may work for him, it doesn't work for them. Therefore his faith is misguided.


Does that hold any water?

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[billvon 2,991]

>But isn't the outcome measurable in action?

Definitely.

>That is, if a person's "faith" leads him to judge and condemn
>others, while it may work for him, it doesn't work for them. Therefore
>his faith is misguided.

>Does that hold any water?

His faith may be misguided in my eyes. I think that people who condemn gays are misguided, but that's my morality, not necessarily theirs.

The only "hard" morality we have are laws, imperfect as they are. So you could say that if someone's faith led him to murder others that there is a very specific and objective problem with his faith.

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

>But isn't the outcome measurable in action?

Definitely.

>That is, if a person's "faith" leads him to judge and condemn
>others, while it may work for him, it doesn't work for them. Therefore
>his faith is misguided.

>Does that hold any water?

His faith may be misguided in my eyes. I think that people who condemn gays are misguided, but that's my morality, not necessarily theirs.

The only "hard" morality we have are laws, imperfect as they are. So you could say that if someone's faith led him to murder others that there is a very specific and objective problem with his faith.

I didn't want to take it into moral law territory.

I meant, the Bible rather specifically says something to the effect of, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

If that's your reference of choice, but you DO judge as a course of faith, and don't accept that it's hippocritical, you're not doing a very good job at being faithful.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

That is, if a person's "faith" leads him to judge and condemn others, while it may work for him, it doesn't work for them. Therefore his faith is misguided.

As we can see in this thread, even atheists can use their beliefs to judge & condemn others.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Rebecca 0]

Quote

Quote

That is, if a person's "faith" leads him to judge and condemn others, while it may work for him, it doesn't work for them. Therefore his faith is misguided.

As we can see in this thread, even atheists can use their beliefs to judge & condemn others.

Well yes, but they're not invoking Jesus and the Bible when they do it. Not saying it makes it OK, just doesn't make 'em hippocrites. Unless they feel others judge THEM unfairly, in which case, it does.

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[billvon 2,991]

> If that's your reference of choice, but you DO judge as a course of
> faith, and don't accept that it's hippocritical, you're not doing a very
> good job at being faithful.

That's my interpretation as well. But a great many people _do_ use the bible as a moral measuring stick, and judge others according to their interpretation of that document. Again, if it works for them, that's fine with me - what I see as inconsistency in other's beliefs doesn't really bother me. What matters the most is if their faith allows them to build a moral framework that helps guide them through life.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

His faith may be misguided in my eyes. I think that people who condemn gays are misguided, but that's my morality, not necessarily theirs.

The only "hard" morality we have are laws, imperfect as they are. So you could say that if someone's faith led him to murder others that there is a very specific and objective problem with his faith.

Ahhh.... The shifting sands of moral relativism.

[billvon 2,991]

>The shifting sands of moral relativism.

Everyone here is a moral relativist. It goes with any moral system.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>The shifting sands of moral relativism.

Everyone here is a moral relativist. It goes with any moral system.

***Moral Relativism - Moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral truths but instead exist relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that no single standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.

A Christian's basis for right and wrong comes from God's moral law. This is the universal moral truth. It is a standard which is above and not relative to the shifting sands of each individual.

[billvon 2,991]

>A Christian's basis for right and wrong comes from God's moral law.

Is killing right or wrong?

>It is a standard which is above and not relative to the shifting sands of each individual.

Unfortunately for that position, all churches' "moral standards" have shifted with time.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Is killing right or wrong?

Murder is wrong.

Quote

Unfortunately for that position, all churches' "moral standards" have shifted with time.

I agree. Many have indeed. They have from the beginning which is why Paul had to write letters to and rebuke some of the early churches. Not much has changed. People are still selfish and want it their way.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Is killing right or wrong?

Murder is wrong.

Define murder.

[billvon 2,991]

>Murder is wrong.

I didn't ask you that. I asked you if KILLING was wrong. A simple moral question.

>Not much has changed.

(in that things keep changing.) I agree, but that's not being selfish; that's being realistic. We don't follow the laws of Leviticus because times have changed. Does that mean that people who follow the laws of Leviticus are wrong? No. Does that mean that YOU are evil for not following them? No. Two different people, two different sets of morals, both based firmly on the bible - and both valid, for them.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is killing right or wrong?

Murder is wrong.

Define murder.

Premeditated, unjustified, intentional killing without cause.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is killing right or wrong?

Murder is wrong.

Define murder.

Premeditated, unjustified, intentional killing without cause.

So a wife who kills her husband's lover in the heat of the moment has not committed murder?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>Murder is wrong.

I didn't ask you that. I asked you if KILLING was wrong. A simple moral question.

It is justified in some situations.

>Not much has changed.

(in that things keep changing.) I agree, but that's not being selfish; that's being realistic. We don't follow the laws of Leviticus because times have changed. Does that mean that people who follow the laws of Leviticus are wrong? No. Does that mean that YOU are evil for not following them? No. Two different people, two different sets of morals, both based firmly on the bible - and both valid, for them.

God's moral law stands firm.

[billvon 2,991]

>It is justified in some situations.

Agreed. So the morality of that act changes depending on the issues. Moral relativism in action; we all do it.

>God's moral law stands firm.

You yourself have given reasons why the law in Leviticus (surely part of God's word) should now be overlooked. I do not disagree with your reasoning - but keep in mind that other people use the same logic to define what _they_ believe. And it's still God's law.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

So a wife who kills her husband's lover in the heat of the moment has not committed murder?

Her action is not justified and I think it would be accurate to state that she has broken the 6th Commandment. Remember, my basis is from God's moral law. His standard. Not what you're studying in school. You can't plead temporary insanity in God's courtroom. He knows your heart.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>It is justified in some situations.

Agreed. So the morality of that act changes depending on the issues. Moral relativism in action; we all do it.

No. God set the boundaries. Not any of us.

>God's moral law stands firm.

Quote

You yourself have given reasons why the law in Leviticus (surely part of God's word) should now be overlooked. I do not disagree with your reasoning - but keep in mind that other people use the same logic to define what _they_ believe. And it's still God's law.

We're not bound by it anymore. The Bible makes that clear. It's still part of history. We just have to understand the differences in Old Testament law (e.g. civil, ceremonial, moral).

[billvon 2,991]

>We're not bound by it anymore. The Bible makes that clear.

And other people have different interpretations of the Bible. Which is fine. The important part is that your interpretation works for you.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

>We're not bound by it anymore. The Bible makes that clear.

And other people have different interpretations of the Bible. Which is fine. The important part is that your interpretation works for you.

No. It is important that we find out what it means for "all of us."

[billvon 2,991]

>No. It is important that we find out what it means for "all of us."

We shall continue to disagree, then. I think that the important part is that it means something for _you_.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

So a wife who kills her husband's lover in the heat of the moment has not committed murder?

Her action is not justified and I think it would be accurate to state that she has broken the 6th Commandment. Remember, my basis is from God's moral law. His standard. Not what you're studying in school. You can't plead temporary insanity in God's courtroom. He knows your heart.

But you just defined murder as premeditated. She didn't know she was going to do it.