Why Do We Trust Ancient Texts as Accurate?
- Thread starter Devils' Advocate
- Start date
I don't consider either a failing. I consider hitting children a failing. There are other and better means of discipline than violence.
LOL, I'm talking about little children! You're not comparing naughty children to mass murderers?
No, we are not. Or at least, the God of Christ does not seek slaves. He seeks those who want to be one with Him.
Well every reading of everything is an assumption. Only when it's corroborated is it taken as a valid reading. So that's why the value of Tradition.
Just because I can read, it doesn't mean I understand what I read.
Yep, they're there. 'Love God, love your neighbour'. The New Commandment. With that, what other text do you need?
There is no slavery in love.
Man believes that...
Most definitely...
This is where the most definitely goesThis attitude is just a human(probably male!) concept projected onto God.
An example would be how leaders like that of North Korea demand loyalty & devotion.
Lol... Yup... Not many Christians out there in our world... If that were the criteria... And it should be... But that would put more Norse mythologists on this planet than Christians.
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
Not According to many passages of the Bible, for example: "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them. - Prov 13:24"
I would say the discussion was about man as a whole, are mass murdering men not subject to God's judgement? A God fearing man will be hesitant to do such acts. A God-Loving man without fear, may not have any issue. it is a bit of fear that keeps anyone on the straight path. Without said fear, anarchy and sinful life seems a lot more fun... especially if you are of a tradition which doesn't believe you must earn your right into heaven.
is Romans 6:22 a lie?
How about the dozens of others referring to people who follow as slaves of righteousness, or servants of God?
I was more referring to it being an implicit idea, than an explicit one. Implicit means it might mean that, Explicit means it says that exactly. Implicit relies on one to interpret and essentially guess, be it a good educated guess or a wild guess. Explicit doesn't leave it open. It is either true or untrue. Much of Christian doctrine is based in the Implicit examination, and largely rejects explicit statements as alternative meanings.
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
I'm sorry Thomas, but I think your strong faith has clouded your ability to analyze this in an objective manner (not a bad thing, just pointing out, I'm sure we all do it from time to time). Love God, Love your Neighbor... Great, I agree. What if your neighbor Rapes your children? Do you go give him a hug and say congratulations and forgive him instantly? I doubt it. But Explicitly speaking there are Laws given on how to deal with such actions in the Bible. Do I agree with all of them, no, but they are there, and they contradict the implicit statement to love thy neighbor. Also as shown above the Love God, and Fear God, are both explicitly stated. How can you say doing one is a failure?
There is no slavery in love... Not very broad sighted is it? Do you love your wife? Would you do just about anything for her? In a way that makes you a slave of hers. Hopefully vice versa also. To be a slave of something has no bearing on whether you love something or not. Of course this embarks on a liberal definition of slavery, but we must be consistent with the way the word was used in the text given. Bible and Quran both use the word "slave" to mean a servant, willing or unwilling. We cannot use the "slave" as it is used today to only refer to the African slaves of the 1700s. Nor can we use it to refer to Owned men without a choice, since that is not the way it was ever used in the scriptures.
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
----
A Cup Of Tea
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,313
- Reaction score
- 579
- Points
- 108
Really? You've yet to make an objective point.
Good.
Ah, the 'what if' and the 'yeah, but' ... Pity him. Exclude him from the community if he is incapable of self-control.
No they don't. Because you're contradicted, don't assume the text is.
Because love transcends fear.
Isn't it?
Yes.
Yes.
No. A partner.
Quite. In fact I'd say if you see yourself as a slave then the one you are enslaved to has robbed you of your human dignity. In the same way that if you enslave yourself to something, you surrender your dignity.
A man once said 'freedom is slavery to the path of your own choosing', he was almost right, but wrong. Self-discipline is not slavery.
Me thinks this seems to belong here....
Why we don't trust ancient texts
Why we don't trust ancient texts
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
I've made several. The issue I am referring to is you are approaching it solely from a Christian mindset. That only works if the Audience is Christian first. What happens when a Jew reads the text without a Christian "telling them" what it means? How about a Hindu, or Buddhist? Do you think they would come to the conclusion that fearing God is a failure? Or that it is impossible to love and fear simultaneously?
But not punish him? Excluding him how? what if he persists, it's not like you gave him permission the first time... You may not like what if's, and I understand completely, but the examples are clear examples the problems and the lack of resolve in that way of thinking. Without punishment, or fear of punishment, nothing deters the sins. People regularly say they "love their spouse" but then go off and cheat on them. Some of these people are absolutely sure they "love" their wife. But they don't fear the punishment.
I'm not saying it is. I made no such claim. I'm saying the implicit statement's general understanding amongst most of Christians I've met in my life, contradicts the Explicit statements from the same text (Using whole Bible as 1 text, yet I am aware it is actually a collection)
That is your opinion. I don't see either as mutually exclusive. Along with many Christians. Love and fear are both essential in the overall path... Think of them as the left wall and right wall of the path (IMO of course.)
Again, this is an issue of you avoiding a word because you don't like it. Anyone you love you are a slave of. I'm a slave of my son, wife, parents, and Allah. I do my best to do all they request. If it is in my power and is not going to hurt them I'll do it, regardless if it is what I want to do.
We must cast away the notion of people owning people as slavery if we are going to use it in the context of Bible, Quran, etc. since that is not the way it is used (when referring to God or others we love or the righteous path). The other type of slavery exists in both books, however it is very clear in context how they are different.
What is dignity, in essence? The definition is "the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect." Are you worthy of the respect of God? Do you feel God should Honor you? How could one believe in his greatness, and power while thinking you are worthy to have him Honor you?
How so? If you are doing something because you feel it is the way an entity told you to, how is it not in a way slavery? If you are the entity, then you are your own master and slave.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 392
- Points
- 83
Considering the different mind sets of the two religions the word 'slave' is more appropriate to the Islamic way of thinking than the Christian?
So the US was born an Islamic nation?
I am confused at this statement...
But we often confuse religious norms vs social norms.
BigJoeNobody
Professional Argument Attractor
I think essentially we are using different meanings of the same word. To be a slave often has negative connotations within the western world. It is however a very broad word that is applicable to many a good things, as well as bad. The Bible refers to followers as slaves of righteousness and slaves of good, even slaves of God. I think Thomas is stuck to proving that we are not property of God (arguable in and of itself) and I am trying to show that explicitly the Bible is showing us that it is ok to both be a slave to God, and to fear God, and to love God. Moreso that all these are explicitly stated in the literal text as necessities. From an Islamic standpoint it is the same. If Thomas believes otherwise, that is fine, but I'd like to see textual proof of such.
Devils' Advocate
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,086
- Reaction score
- 392
- Points
- 83
I meant that from what Joe and Thomas have individually said that the modern usage of the word 'slave' was perhaps more appropriate to Islam than Christianity. I was only referring to this narrow use of the term, not a historical use of the term.
Joe has chimed in with this thoughts. Hopefully Thomas will add his soon.
The discussion of ‘slavery’ came out of the discussion of ‘fear’.
think the terms have to be understood in their proper context. ‘Slavery’ in its day was socially acceptable. It was the norm.
Today neither term is socially acceptable, and for that reason they carry too much negative emphasis in contemporary discussion. In my own Tradition, the idea of God as Lord and Master, King, etc. meant that leaders too easily assume lordship and mastership, kingship and ownership over their congregations. Their congregations become their possession to dispose of as they will, and at times the laity is regarded as ‘in service’ to the clergy and still today the lay church is much without voice in the management of the institution. Put another way, down through history there have been popes whose desire was that the church be like good slaves or good servants – that we do as we’re told and we don’t question nor answer back.
Christ however, never uses the term slave, and in all His dialogues he speaks of God as ‘Father’ – He uses the Aramaic familial term Abba rather than any more formal alternative. And He continually says ‘fear not’ – and in fact treats faith as a reason not to fear the Father.
The relationship between father and child is neither servant nor slave.
I think the ancient world’s notion of the gods as capricious, and man as their plaything, laid a certain ground that we have still, even today, not successfully got away from.
The idea stems from the fabric of human experience, that nature can slap us down, kings can slap us down, tyrants and despots … the psychopaths that clawed their way to the top of the heap … the experience is that those above can and do slap down those below with impunity, and we’ve transferred this notion to God … but God is not a man.
So I think ‘bad gods’, ‘bad kings’ and ‘bad parents’ have instilled in humanity a kind of response towards authority that is neither healthy nor helpful. Love, respect, honour … none of these things speak of fear or servitude.
Having said that, the left-wing liberalism of the post-60s west is just a fundamentalism of the other extreme. Anti-authoritarianism, anti-establishmentarianism, in fact anti-anything, I’ll have some of that … what’s important is to be seen to be a rebel, doesn’t matter what you’re rebelling against, or indeed whether there’s any logic to your rebellion. Like the classic line from Marlon Brando in The Wild One:
Mildred: Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?
Johnny: Whadda you got?
To which the answer should be a raised eyebrow and the hope that one day Johnny might grow up.
think the terms have to be understood in their proper context. ‘Slavery’ in its day was socially acceptable. It was the norm.
Today neither term is socially acceptable, and for that reason they carry too much negative emphasis in contemporary discussion. In my own Tradition, the idea of God as Lord and Master, King, etc. meant that leaders too easily assume lordship and mastership, kingship and ownership over their congregations. Their congregations become their possession to dispose of as they will, and at times the laity is regarded as ‘in service’ to the clergy and still today the lay church is much without voice in the management of the institution. Put another way, down through history there have been popes whose desire was that the church be like good slaves or good servants – that we do as we’re told and we don’t question nor answer back.
Christ however, never uses the term slave, and in all His dialogues he speaks of God as ‘Father’ – He uses the Aramaic familial term Abba rather than any more formal alternative. And He continually says ‘fear not’ – and in fact treats faith as a reason not to fear the Father.
The relationship between father and child is neither servant nor slave.
I think the ancient world’s notion of the gods as capricious, and man as their plaything, laid a certain ground that we have still, even today, not successfully got away from.
The idea stems from the fabric of human experience, that nature can slap us down, kings can slap us down, tyrants and despots … the psychopaths that clawed their way to the top of the heap … the experience is that those above can and do slap down those below with impunity, and we’ve transferred this notion to God … but God is not a man.
So I think ‘bad gods’, ‘bad kings’ and ‘bad parents’ have instilled in humanity a kind of response towards authority that is neither healthy nor helpful. Love, respect, honour … none of these things speak of fear or servitude.
Having said that, the left-wing liberalism of the post-60s west is just a fundamentalism of the other extreme. Anti-authoritarianism, anti-establishmentarianism, in fact anti-anything, I’ll have some of that … what’s important is to be seen to be a rebel, doesn’t matter what you’re rebelling against, or indeed whether there’s any logic to your rebellion. Like the classic line from Marlon Brando in The Wild One:
Mildred: Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?
Johnny: Whadda you got?
To which the answer should be a raised eyebrow and the hope that one day Johnny might grow up.
Richard Pickett
Tazdog
The New Covenant does not replace the Old Covenant.. It enhances it..