Granite on the Bible

[Granite]

Split from this thread

The founders made it that way. But they had hoped moral folks would be the ones doing it.



On this we agree. However, it's not the fault of the Constitution but the moraless men who changed it or misinterpreted it (SCotUS '73 for example).

True but the morality of the time changed. The people changed. This much was inevitable.

The Constitution is a good document. It is a brilliant document. But it is not perfect. And it was not designed to last forever.

 

[Nineveh]

True but the morality of the time changed. The people changed. This much was inevitable.

Morality, especially the morality the founders appealed to, does not change.

The Constitution is a good document. It is a brilliant document. But it is not perfect. And it was not designed to last forever.

It was designed to last as long as we had a moral people.

 

[Granite]

Morality, especially the morality the founders appealed to, does not change.



It was designed to last as long as we had a moral people.

Morality does change based on what the people do or do not tolerate. That's the potential danger behind any democratic form of government.

 

[Nineveh]

Morality does change based on what the people do or do not tolerate. That's the potential danger behind any democratic form of government.

I'm sorry to have to disagree with you here, but Christian morality does not change.

 

[Granite]

The Bible hasn't changed in thousands of years. What changes is "enlightened" folks like Kinsey feed the people a bunch of bilge based on faulty "science" and folks love to eat it up because they now feel "justified" based on this "new data". Yet all the while the Bible still maintains sex is for marriage.

But the interpretation of the Bible has.

Who's to say you aren't "wrong" now?

Slavery used to be defended by the church, as was the subhuman nature of blacks.

Women were chattel.

Alcohol was prohibited.

All of this has been done based on "the Bible," so I'd say something sure has changed as time's gone on.

 

[Nineveh]

... Slavery used to be defended by the church, ...
All of this has been done based on "the Bible," so I'd say something sure has changed as time's gone on.

Granite, I don't mean to be rude to you, so please don't take it that way but....

I am truly sorry you (and zakath) can not discern between the Bible and what men say/do. For anyone who can read, and actually decides to do so, it's pretty evident how God desires men to treat each other. "Don't murder" hasn't changed since God told Noah. Maybe you should start a thread on all the things men have done in the name of a god that are evil, as you define it. Here on this thread, I would like to focus on the founders and their view of morality being the basis of our freedom.

 

[TobiasKage]

Granite, I don't mean to be rude to you, so please don't take it that way but....

I am truly sorry you (and zakath) can not discern between the Bible and what men say/do. For anyone who can read, and actually decides to do so, it's pretty evident how God desires men to treat each other. "Don't murder" hasn't changed since God told Noah. Maybe you should start a thread on all the things men have done in the name of a god that are evil, as you define it. Here on this thread, I would like to focus on the founders and their view of morality being the basis of our freedom.

Not to pick Nin, but the bible, i.e., Ten Commandments, never forbid the ownership of slaves, or even the buying or selling of slaves. In biblical days, slaves were viewed as property, the law protecting them would be the one against theft of property. Just to point out.

 

[Nineveh]

Not to pick Nin, but the bible, i.e., Ten Commandments, never forbid the ownership of slaves, or even the buying or selling of slaves. In biblical days, slaves were viewed as property, the law protecting them would be the one against theft of property. Just to point out.

Do you believe slavery is in and of itself immoral?

 

[Granite]

Granite, I don't mean to be rude to you, so please don't take it that way but....

I am truly sorry you (and zakath) can not discern between the Bible and what men say/do. For anyone who can read, and actually decides to do so, it's pretty evident how God desires men to treat each other. "Don't murder" hasn't changed since God told Noah. Maybe you should start a thread on all the things men have done in the name of a god that are evil, as you define it. Here on this thread, I would like to focus on the founders and their view of morality being the basis of our freedom.

The Bible says slavery is okay. The Bible says women are little more than property. The Bible says celibacy is preferrable to marriage. So, while you think "the Bible doesn't change," what you're really saying is that interpretations of the Bible are what is really changing.

 

[Nineveh]

The Bible says slavery is okay.

God even gives slaves a day off.

The Bible says women are little more than property.

Seems like God cares a whole lot more for women than today's society does. God wanted women within a marriage before engaging in sex. This means they wouldn't worry about being used and tossed aside or having children with no fathers or financial support.

The Bible says celibacy is preferrable to marriage.

Paul said it's ok not to be married, but if you can not control yourself it's better to get married.

So, while you think "the Bible doesn't change," what you're really saying is that interpretations of the Bible are what is really changing.

Right, men get things wrong all the time. It's not like we can't compare what men say with what the Bible says and get a more accurate picture. Much like your misunderstanding of what the Bible says about celibacy and women.

Now please granite, I asked you nicely once to make a thread to air your complaints about the Bible. Let this be your last post off topic. Thank you

 

[Granite]

God even gives slaves a day off.



Seems like God cares a whole lot more for women than today's society does. God wanted women within a marriage before engaging in sex. This means they wouldn't worry about being used and tossed aside or having children with no fathers or financial support.



Paul said it's ok not to be married, but if you can not control yourself it's better to get married.



Right, men get things wrong all the time. It's not like we can't compare what men say with what the Bible says and get a more accurate picture. Much like your misunderstanding of what the Bible says about celibacy and women.

Now please granite, I asked you nicely once to make a thread to air your complaints about the Bible. Let this be your last post off topic. Thank you

Actually, the law never forbids sex between two unmarried adults. Sorry, that's just the way it is. And Paul said celibacy was preferrable, which is a lesson almost completely ignored by the church these days. Marriage seemed to be a last resort for the apostle.

If men get things wrong all the time, who is to say you and others like you aren't the ones who are wrong now?

 

[Nineveh]

Actually, the law never forbids sex between two unmarried adults. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

But what does the Bible say about fornication? It says if you use a women, you are to marry her.

And Paul said celibacy was preferrable, which is a lesson almost completely ignored by the church these days. Marriage seemed to be a last resort for the apostle.

For him, not for the others. Paul's preference is being taken out of context, especially when we consider what he has to say about church leaders.

If men get things wrong all the time, who is to say you and others like you aren't the ones who are wrong now?

Please tell me how you can misinterpret "don't murder" and "put murderers to death"

Anyway, since I asked nicley twice, I'm going to split your comments into it's own thread.

 

[Granite]

But what does the Bible say about fornication? It says if you use a women, you are to marry her.



For him, not for the others. Paul's preference is being taken out of context, especially when we consider what he has to say about church leaders.



Please tell me how you can misinterpret "don't murder" and "put murderers to death"

Anyway, since I asked nicley twice, I'm going to split your comments into it's own thread.

It says a woman either betrothed or living in her father's house is to be married (either to her seducer, which is bad, or to her rapist, which is worse). There is nothing in the law, or any of scripture, that prohibits two unmarried adults from sleeping with one another. Not a thing. Such a prohibition is an invention.

We're not talking about murder or the death penalty--and besides, penalizing murderers isn't unique to the Bible or to Judeo-Christianity. You said morality does not change; I say it most certainly does change with the times.

 

[Nineveh]

It says a woman either betrothed or living in her father's house is to be married (either to her seducer, which is bad, or to her rapist, which is worse).

Is that you just haven't read anything Turbo has said on the rapist bit, or are you just willing to ignore it?

And no, it's not bad to to make a man marry a woman he has used sexually. I can see where you might like to believe that, though.

There is nothing in the law, or any of scripture, that prohibits two unmarried adults from sleeping with one another. Not a thing. Such a prohibition is an invention.

You are the only one arguing the point, isn't this called a strawman argument?

We're not talking about murder or the death penalty--and besides, penalizing murderers isn't unique to the Bible or to Judeo-Christianity. You said morality does not change; I say it most certainly does change with the times.

Biblical morality has not changed. When Jesus asked a man what the Law was the man replied, "Love God with your whole being, and love your neighbor as yourself". Same from the day Moses brought it down from the mountain to the day Jesus asked.

The penalty for murder was given to Noah even when SCotUs flip flopped on it a few times.

Men tend toward immorality. If morality was as changing as you say, there wouldn't be any basis to compare how far men go, now would there?

 

[Granite]

Is that you just haven't read anything Turbo has said on the rapist bit, or are you just willing to ignore it?

And no, it's not bad to to make a man marry a woman he has used sexually. I can see where you might like to believe that, though.



You are the only one arguing the point, isn't this called a strawman argument?



Biblical morality has not changed. When Jesus asked a man what the Law was the man replied, "Love God with your whole being, and love your neighbor as yourself". Same from the day Moses brought it down from the mountain to the day Jesus asked.

The penalty for murder was given to Noah even when SCotUs flip flopped on it a few times.

Men tend toward immorality. If morality was as changing as you say, there wouldn't be any basis to compare how far men go, now would there?

I've read Turbo's justification for rapists wedding their victims; I've also read other theonomists tackle this issue as well. Personally I think it's some of the worst, sickening transference I've ever encountered. This is the logical extension of grotesque and twisted thinking: when a woman raped is forced to marry her attacker, we are absolutely living in the twilight zone. And a girl seduced who has to marry her seducer is almost equally bad.

In regards to unmarried adults having sex...

It's not a straw man argument, Nin, because it is absolutely true. You and others in the self-annointed moral majority need to deal with this. (You guys also need to get over your sexual prudery but, hey. I'm not gonna hope for too much.)

Morality has changed and we can see that because man IS limited today, as opposed to, say, fifty years ago. Wife beating, segregation, and racism are all fortunately on the decline. Such things were normative in this nation for far too long. They are not tolerated, by and large, today. When did the limits change? Why? Why can't we go as far as we used to, and why is some behavior no longer tolerated today? Why is some behavior tolerated and encouraged?

Morality shifts in every culture throughout human history.

 

[kmoney]

I've read Turbo's justification for rapists wedding their victims; I've also read other theonomists tackle this issue as well. Personally I think it's some of the worst, sickening transference I've ever encountered. This is the logical extension of grotesque and twisted thinking: when a woman raped is forced to marry her attacker, we are absolutely living in the twilight zone. And a girl seduced who has to marry her seducer is almost equally bad.

In regards to unmarried adults having sex...

It's not a straw man argument, Nin, because it is absolutely true. You and others in the self-annointed moral majority need to deal with this. (You guys also need to get over your sexual prudery but, hey. I'm not gonna hope for too much.)

Morality has changed and we can see that because man IS limited today, as opposed to, say, fifty years ago. Wife beating, segregation, and racism are all fortunately on the decline. Such things were normative in this nation for far too long. They are not tolerated, by and large, today. When did the limits change? Why? Why can't we go as far as we used to, and why is some behavior no longer tolerated today? Why is some behavior tolerated and encouraged?

Morality shifts in every culture throughout human history.

where does Turbo talk about a woman marrying her rapist?

 

[Granite]

where does Turbo talk about a woman marrying her rapist?

It's been discussed before on many threads...I'm sure if you PM him he'll probably come up with a few.

 

[Nineveh]

I've read Turbo's justification for rapists wedding their victims;

But you insist on saying things like the above? Since you claim to have read it, that must mean you just choose to ignore it.

I've also read other theonomists tackle this issue as well. Personally I think it's some of the worst, sickening transference I've ever encountered. This is the logical extension of grotesque and twisted thinking: when a woman raped is forced to marry her attacker, we are absolutely living in the twilight zone.

granite, when you persist in perpetuating an error, it forces me to see your intention. It's not to crusade for a just cause, it's to try berating the Bible. Even if it means ignoring the truth.

Looking at Deuteronomy 22:28

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,"

According to my Hebrew word study, "lay hold" or "seizes" ( taphas ) means "to manipulate".

So there we have it, once again your error is corrected, and I have no doubt you will persist in your willful ignorance on the matter.

And a girl seduced who has to marry her seducer is almost equally bad.

Right, that might put a crimp in the porn industry. I guess we shouldn't consider the virtue of the woman or her future or any children that might come from such a union.

In regards to unmarried adults having sex...

It's not a straw man argument, Nin, because it is absolutely true. You and others in the self-annointed moral majority need to deal with this. (You guys also need to get over your sexual prudery but, hey. I'm not gonna hope for too much.)

God lays out that sex is for marriage. It's very simple. You have to try to miss that point.

Morality has changed and we can see that because man IS limited today, as opposed to, say, fifty years ago. Wife beating, segregation, and racism are all fortunately on the decline. Such things were normative in this nation for far too long. They are not tolerated, by and large, today. When did the limits change? Why? Why can't we go as far as we used to, and why is some behavior no longer tolerated today? Why is some behavior tolerated and encouraged?

Beating a wife, segragation and racism have never been moral to begin with. It took a man to promote these ideas.

According to the Bible we all come from the same parents. Not just once from Adam and Eve, but twice over from Noah.

Morality shifts in every culture throughout human history.

Morality does not change. Men tend toward evil. You gave a list of men's bad ideas we are finally getting past. Here are a few we have torn down the barrier on: homosexuality, pornography, fornication, and adultry. I will even go so far as to say pedophilia is being torn down in our generation by sexualizing children.

 

[Granite]

But you insist on saying things like the above? Since you claim to have read it, that must mean you just choose to ignore it.



granite, when you persist in perpetuating an error, it forces me to see your intention. It's not to crusade for a just cause, it's to try berating the Bible. Even if it means ignoring the truth.

Looking at Deuteronomy 22:28

“If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out,"

According to my Hebrew word study, "lay hold" or "seizes" ( taphas ) means "to manipulate".

So there we have it, once again your error is corrected, and I have no doubt you will persist in your willful ignorance on the matter.



Right, that might put a crimp in the porn industry. I guess we shouldn't consider the virtue of the woman or her future or any children that might come from such a union.



God lays out that sex is for marriage. It's very simple. You have to try to miss that point.



Beating a wife, segragation and racism have never been moral to begin with. It took a man to promote these ideas.

According to the Bible we all come from the same parents. Not just once from Adam and Eve, but twice over from Noah.



Morality does not change. Men tend toward evil. You gave a list of men's bad ideas we are finally getting past. Here are a few we have torn down the barrier on: homosexuality, pornography, fornication, and adultry. I will even go so far as to say pedophilia is being torn down in our generation by sexualizing children.

I don't "ignore" it, Nineveh. I disagree with it. Since when is a disagreement over a conclusion actually "ignoring" something?

Taphas can mean any number of things according to Strong's, including

Catch
Caught
Handle
Hold
Stop
Surprise
Take

Piney's concordance gives the same meanings: "manipulate, i. e. seize; chiefly to capture." This does not sound consenting or like much fun for the lady involved. When a guy in a field catches and takes a woman by surprise, we normally call that rape.

Wife beating, segregation, and racism were all condoned by the church, supported with scripture, and endorsed by good Christian folk. So at one point in time they certainly were "moral" stances to take.

But, fortunately, the morality changed.

If this is true who is to say it's not you who is actually on the wrong side, this time?

 

[Turbo]

Is that you just haven't read anything Turbo has said on the rapist bit, or are you just willing to ignore it?

It's that he's willing to ignore it at all costs:

I've read Turbo's justification for rapists wedding their victims...

That is a lie, Granite! You have not read it, because I have never written it. It is you who would love to twist the Scriptures to paint God as unjust, forcing rape victims to marry their attackers. Rapists should be executed, period. Victims of rape or any other crime should not be punished.