The word Jehovah does not appear in the bible. It’s a medieval invention right?
[/quote]
I don’t know what that has to do with my post, or even what your point is, but here we go. Jehovah is just another word for God. When this word was created it was in its early stages. If you read the 1611 version of the KJV the letter u is used in place of v. So are we to think the word believe we used today is wrong because we use a v instead of a u?
Here is some more info if you want it, but I think this is a wasted argument.
This is a strawman like when Christians say the name Allah is not found in the Bible. Big deal! It means God in a native language. You don’t go around calling God Eloheem do you? or do you only use Hebrew and greek words that describe God?
Back to the original post. Helping the poor is not a partisan issue. The difference is that Republicans and Democrats disagree on how to help the poor. Dealing with relativism you should check this guy out. I think the he is an amazing speaker. As for the topic header, I do not agree with either.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Not true Allah was a specific name for a moon god in a polytheistic arab religion which Mohommed chose to be the one god in Islam.
Sorry, it was off topic though.[/quote]
I understand where its origins came from, but that does not negate the fact that is the word that they use for God.
I would have to ask where is your reasoning in asking such a question? I don’t go around calling Him Jehovah. If you want to get technical Baal was once a name to describe God too, it became corrupted, and was used to worship a different diety. It was however in its origional sense a description for God.
If you would like to continue this discussion PM me. You seem to take issue with me on things so why not do it there. If that venue does not suit you we could find another Forum that is setup for debates.
Abortion and gay couples are just wrong and as far as the government I for one think they take way too much in taxes from me. After all I have not seen anything done to help me as an american working man. Infact all the middle class worker ever gets from the government is the SHAFT!
Republican or democrat it does not matter they are all thieves.
[quote]haney wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Not true Allah was a specific name for a moon god in a polytheistic arab religion which Mohommed chose to be the one god in Islam.
Sorry, it was off topic though.
I understand where its origins came from, but that does not negate the fact that is the word that they use for God.
I would have to ask where is your reasoning in asking such a question? I don’t go around calling Him Jehovah. If you want to get technical Baal was once a name to describe God too, it became corrupted, and was used to worship a different diety. It was however in its origional sense a description for God.
If you would like to continue this discussion PM me. You seem to take issue with me on things so why not do it there. If that venue does not suit you we could find another Forum that is setup for debates.[/quote]
No, not important. The reason it was relevant to me was that I have rarely seen biblical scholars cite using the term Jehovah, and those who did tended to have a very particular way of looking at the bible. My points a long time ago which no one debated was that a)governments have a gradual inevitable pull away from absolute moral law and toward relative and pragmatic law and B) that moral relativism is a creation of American protestant moral relativism and that US law arose in the constext or petri dish of this form of protestant relativism.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
haney wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Not true Allah was a specific name for a moon god in a polytheistic arab religion which Mohommed chose to be the one god in Islam.
Sorry, it was off topic though.
I understand where its origins came from, but that does not negate the fact that is the word that they use for God.
I would have to ask where is your reasoning in asking such a question? I don’t go around calling Him Jehovah. If you want to get technical Baal was once a name to describe God too, it became corrupted, and was used to worship a different diety. It was however in its origional sense a description for God.
If you would like to continue this discussion PM me. You seem to take issue with me on things so why not do it there. If that venue does not suit you we could find another Forum that is setup for debates.
No, not important. The reason it was relevant to me was that I have rarely seen biblical scholars cite using the term Jehovah, and those who did tended to have a very particular way of looking at the bible. My points a long time ago which no one debated was that a)governments have a gradual inevitable pull away from absolute moral law and toward relative and pragmatic law and B) that moral relativism is a creation of American protestant moral relativism and that US law arose in the constext or petri dish of this form of protestant relativism.
[/quote]
I didn’t know the Jehovah thing was such a big issue? I personally almost never use the term. If I am going to use a term like that I prefer to use anything with EL in it.
Interesting thought. I would state though that th church has always been in a constant state of swinging from one extreme to the next. It is clear even the early church had issues with these things.
I might of objected to your post if I had read all of them, then again I might of agreed with them.
Situational ethics, morals, hamburger, cheeseburger – it’s the same damn thing.
[quote]haney wrote:
Here is the moral section of the Ten Commandments.
Exo 20:12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long upon the land which Jehovah your God gives you.
Exo 20:13 You shall not kill.
Exo 20:14 You shall not commit adultery.
Exo 20:15 You shall not steal.
Exo 20:16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
Exo 20:17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.[/quote]
This is also the “ethics” portion of the ten commandments. A code of behavior, if you will. Literally written in stone, but bendable.
I can think of about a thousand ways to answer your questions, here’s a few:
No respect: When terrorists run into crowded marketplaces and blow themselves up so that they can kill everybody, I tend to not respect them.
Adultery: This is a little weirder, but bear with me. Let’s say that a married woman at my job was being physically abused by her husband and had the classic “battered woman” syndrome. What if I realize that the only way I can help her is to seduce her away from her abuser… to show her that she deserves happiness and someone who can respect her and treat her right? Is this reaching a bit? Yeah, so what. I’m not exactly a genius.
Stealing: Let’s say my family and I are starving to death, Ethiopian style. Sally Struthers walks by with a snacky cake, and turns her back for a second. I am going to lift that snacky cake, dammit!
Lying: This is something I really don’t like to do myself, but I would lie to someone if it would help them somehow, for example:
Some shot dude: “Is it bad, man?”
Me: “Nah, the bullet only made a little hole… you’re not even bleeding that much… you’re gonna be okay. Hold on, buddy, the ambulance will be here real soon…”
Do you see what I’m getting at? Morality is something which is applied only in the light of the situation and your point-of-view. If you choose to follow a set of ethics blindly without taking these things into consideration, then you are choosing to do this yourself. Some people will agree with you and say that you did the right thing, and some people won’t.
[quote]You could find a time when we might understand why you did it, but I doubt anyone would say it is ok.
That again though would be situational ethics, and not morals.
[/quote]
Same thing, buddy.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Situational ethics, morals, hamburger, cheeseburger – it’s the same damn thing.
[/quote]
Not quite, but I agree they are very similiar
They are dead how can you respect them?
At that point if you felt anything worth while for them it would be admiration.
You have to be as tall as Yao Ming to reach this much.
Not many are!
My statement was we would still say it is wrong. You may be more justified, but stealing would still be wrong. That is why the turks used to cut peoples hands off when they stole. No matter how starved they were.
Once again you can justify it, but we would still say it is wrong!
I never missed the point. I was just pointing to the other side of the coin. In my opinion right is right, there is never really gray. I am not gifted with the ability to always know right, and how to do right in the gray situations, but I try.
[quote]
You could find a time when we might understand why you did it, but I doubt anyone would say it is ok.
That again though would be situational ethics, and not morals.
There may be some more impetus for state constitutional amendments, depending on the progress of this New York case – of course, it will likely take a few years to work its way up the judicial chain…
[i]A judge declared Friday that a law banning same-sex marriage violates the state constitution, a first-of-its-kind ruling in New York that would clear the way for gay couples to wed if it survives on appeal.[/i]
Are there any experts on the NY state appellate courts who can make some informed guesses about what the appellate judges will do? If so, please enlighten us in the comment section.
UPDATE: The opinion is available here ( http://www.lambdalegal.org/binary-data/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/378.pdf ). My very quick skim of the opinion suggests that the provisions of the NY Constitution the court relied on are textually identical to the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, and that the trial court relied on a mix of judicial precedents interpreting the U.S. constitution, the Massachusetts constitution, the Hawaiian constitution, the Washington State constitution, the Vermont constitution, New York law, and Canadian law to justify its result.
[i]A day after ruling that New York City must allow homosexual marriages, a state judge today declared traditional heterosexual marriage unconstitutional.
"Homosexual marriage rests on the bedrock of judicial opinion," wrote Justice Doris Ling-Cohan, "But heterosexual marriage finds justification in little more than religious myth, antiquated tradition and a few unconstitutional state and local laws. These are all hollow arguments when compared with the firm foundation provided by a growing number of judges."[/i]
If the 10 commandments had been that situationally cut and dried then the Isrealites wouldn’t have needed all of the commentary, and debate on the law that they did. You can’t kill and when someone commits adultery you have to kill them! By the way, I think that the first three commandments would be the pure moral commandments as they have no earthly pragmatism.
By the way, the Apostolic constitution (or Rudder I’m not sure) says that if you commit sodomy, you are to be excommunicated for a time after repenting so that with prayer and fasting you can return to Christ’s body. It says roughly the same for masturbation. The early church also had issues first (and for a short time) about marriage at all, then about second marriages, but having a celebate priest as a general rule in charge of a flock of married people was considered unwise.
[quote]haney wrote:
I never missed the point. I was just pointing to the other side of the coin. In my opinion right is right, there is never really gray. I am not gifted with the ability to always know right, and how to do right in the gray situations, but I try.[/quote]
And good for you, buddy… me too. But what we are talking about is whether or not the concepts we individually hold in our minds of right/wrong are self-determined or if they are absolute values independent of individual judgement. Here’s a kind of litmus test for ya: Can what you believe is right/wrong change over the span of your lifetime? If so, why? How can something be right/wrong without a human being to label it as such? Aren’t these things human inventions?
If the 10 commandments had been that situationally cut and dried then the Isrealites wouldn’t have needed all of the commentary, and debate on the law that they did. You can’t kill and when someone commits adultery you have to kill them! By the way, I think that the first three commandments would be the pure moral commandments as they have no earthly pragmatism.[/quote]
So are you saying that right and wrong are difficult to define, and are dependent on circumstances? And the debate about the commandments: does it show that we make our own morality, or at least color it with our own point of view?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Lotahrio and Haney:
So are you saying that right and wrong are difficult to define, and are dependent on circumstances? And the debate about the commandments: does it show that we make our own morality, or at least color it with our own point of view?
[/quote]
Draw the Line
performed by Victoria Jackson (date unknown)
Talk about love
Talk about morality
Are we having an affair
Or are you just glad to see me
Will a kiss goodnight
A kiss timed by the minute
If a minutes too long
Does the sweet little kiss have the devil in it
If we whisper low
Things no one else can hear
Will my husband know
Will he think my vows were insincere
Where do you draw the line
Between love and adultry
If your a friend of mine
Can I hold your hand
Where do you draw the line
Bump de Bump
(It’s suppose to make you think)
Do you think it’s O.K.
If I tickle your ear this way
Or if I lick the lint out of your navel
With my tongue
Will the neighbors talk
will they missconstru
And think you are not just my boyfriend
But that I am in love with you
Where do you draw the line
Do you think it’s O.K.
If our clothes accidentaly fall off
When you come over to be comforted
Because a family member died
Or if we cuddled under the covers
of your bed because my heater wasn’t working
And it was really really really really really really really really cold outside
Were the last two people on earth
And had to perpetuate the species
Or if a mafia hitman ordered us to
sleep together on day
Or what if the doctor said I had this terrible disease
And the only way to cure it would be
To take a shower with you naked
Where do you draw the line
Where do you draw the line
Where do you draw the line
If the 10 commandments had been that situationally cut and dried then the Isrealites wouldn’t have needed all of the commentary, and debate on the law that they did. You can’t kill and when someone commits adultery you have to kill them! By the way, I think that the first three commandments would be the pure moral commandments as they have no earthly pragmatism.
[/quote]
Well I only responded to loth, because he asked are ther times when you would see a reason to break those. I would say no. If everyone followed them it would be pretty cut and dry. You are taking God’s theocratic law for the Israelites, and trying to say that is the moral code. It was the justice system for a God ruled Government.
If you want to know where the true moral code of the Christian is it would be found in the NT here.
Mat 22:37 Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.
Looks like JC thought it was pretty clear, cut, and dry.
[/quote]
By the way, the Apostolic constitution (or Rudder I’m not sure) says that if you commit sodomy, you are to be excommunicated for a time after repenting so that with prayer and fasting you can return to Christ’s body. It says roughly the same for masturbation. The early church also had issues first (and for a short time) about marriage at all, then about second marriages, but having a celebate priest as a general rule in charge of a flock of married people was considered unwise.[/quote]
And good for you, buddy… me too. But what we are talking about is whether or not the concepts we individually hold in our minds of right/wrong are self-determined or if they are absolute values independent of individual judgement. Here’s a kind of litmus test for ya: Can what you believe is right/wrong change over the span of your lifetime? If so, why? How can something be right/wrong without a human being to label it as such? Aren’t these things human inventions?[/quote]
Morally right and wrong my opinion has not changed in my lifetime. As for personal interpretation of small issues, yeah that can change.
It is your opinion that these things are Human inventions, and it is my opinion that they are divine inventions.
So are you saying that right and wrong are difficult to define, and are dependent on circumstances? And the debate about the commandments: does it show that we make our own morality, or at least color it with our own point of view?
[/quote]
I actually found something that I agree with you on. I would say most people color everything in their life with their point of view.
[quote]haney wrote:
By the way, the Apostolic constitution (or Rudder I’m not sure) says that if you commit sodomy, you are to be excommunicated for a time after repenting so that with prayer and fasting you can return to Christ’s body. It says roughly the same for masturbation. The early church also had issues first (and for a short time) about marriage at all, then about second marriages, but having a celebate priest as a general rule in charge of a flock of married people was considered unwise.
sola scriptura
[/quote]
Yea, its pretty consistent with scripture. Masturbation made you unclean and de-facto cut off from God’s people until purified.
Also, Joseph was married twice-right?
So you mean that these “rules” were at one with scripture right?
[quote]haney wrote:
sola scriptura
[/quote]
Haney, if this is off topic we can discuss it somewhere else, but it has been explained to me that the books of the new testament were edited and selected specifically to serve as scripture readings in the daily services of the primitive (pre destruction of the temple) church and intended to be set up to parallel the old testament synogogue readings. We know that the christian services at the time of the apostles paralleled the daily/hourly pattern of Judaism. John talks about being at the daily service.
What do you think this daily service looked like?
I wonder how you interpret the verse:
“My flesh is truly meat and my blood is truly drink?”
[quote]haney wrote:
Morally right and wrong my opinion has not changed in my lifetime. As for personal interpretation of small issues, yeah that can change.
It is your opinion that these things are Human inventions, and it is my opinion that they are divine inventions.
[/quote]
Agreed. I think the reason we don’t see exactly eye-to-eye on this is because I also happen to think that God is a human invention, whereas you do not (of course). Hmmm… okay. What if you’re following the wrong God, haney? Kind of a twist on Pascal’s Gambit there.
