Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Philosophically, you have a point, but not pragmatically. It's a lot easier and more efficient to shut a place down than to try to convince every person who might ever be tempted to go in there. I guess it's the same reason that people fill in or cap off dried-up wells.
Answer to your first question is no. I'm an atheist, so I think societal response is all we have. I'm just trying trying to ponder theological explanations.
Damn, your situation sounds so much like mine...my wife won't talk to me about religion anymore. She doesn't want to hear my reasoning, I suspect, out of fear it makes her uncomfortable about her worldview and her life experience.
I realize my definition of theological is not as precise as it could be. By theological I only mean explanations containing God, Jesus, the bible, etc, as opposed to explanations not containing those things.
If the only reason for a law is religion, I completely agree that it should be legal.
I’ve heard some use the Kings of Judah who destroyed idols and high places as a question on whether or not Christians should be actively doing some of the things you’re discussing.
Every sunday is hardly rare. Why can I buy alcohol at noon six days a week, but not on Sunday, for any reason that's not religion?
I think so. Are you saying that Jesus's example can be used as the basis for limiting the ability of others to do X?
I am not sure how this would translate into rationale to enact legislation to prohibit something.
That's one thing, although every week
It's also stupid given the old testament sabbath is from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. Sunday was the holy day in the pagan religions.
If we wanted to go down the road of "Christian" stuff stolen from pagans, we'll be here a while.
I apologize for hijacking my own thread, but that is something else I've been curious about. If I keep one day for a day of rest, does that mean I should avoid making others work? I live in Kentucky. If I'm a Christian and consider Sunday to be my holy day/day of rest, is it ok to go to Cracker Barrel after church, since I'm engaging in an activity where other people are having to work? Or do I just assume they will have a different holy day/day of rest?
I gave christianity 30+ years. I'm okay spending a few months pointing out that its roots are far more pagan than they are jewish.
But it's an opportunity for growth. Maybe she doesn't appreciate that. She has a chance to become a better person than she is with this chance.
Kind of a weird question that doesn’t make sense. We don’t live in a theocracy. Many people who set rules don’t have any interest in allowing theological questions set political laws.
Nothing more than a theological basis for the answer to the question whether there is anything in the Bible justifying Christians limiting anyone's freedom to do something.
Sunday is a holy day because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, not because of pagan practices.
Dear OP: This is an example you should have led with. The ordinances that Spock is citing have no justification other than religious belief.
One of the biggest twists of logic Christian apologists engage in is explaining how jesus rose from the dead after three days when the gospels indicate he died on Friday just before sundown and by early Sunday morning had already risen. Maybe instead of 3 days, he meant 36 hours.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Constantine was the Roman emperor from 306 AD to 337 AD. He converted to christianity in 312 AD. He freed christiantiy from Roman persecution in 313 AD. With christians now free to practice christianity, the Roman economy had christians closed for business on Saturday (the sabbath) and pagans closed for business on Sunday (their holy day). In 321 Constantine decreed Sunday to be the official day of rest. Rome eventually made christianity the official religion. Roman christianity outgrew all other forms of christianity because Rome was the world empire. And thus christianity as we know it today has Sunday as the holy day. The explanation that christians "chose" to make it Sunday because Jesus rose on Sunday is another example of apologetic bullcrap.Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Saturday is the seventh day - Sabbath, I believe Sunday is a "holy day" for no other reason than the church didn't like Saturday.
The Church (men, human beings) ignoring/changing one of the ten commandments is up there on my list of favorites.
From John 2:19-22
"On the third day" was first penned by Paul decades after Jesus lived. There is nothing that shows that's what Jesus said, or even meant.
I’m close to being with you on this and I can’t remember if we’ve discussed it in the past or not. Where I differ is I truly believe that whether you or a Christian or not that a good number of the teachings of Jesus lead to what I consider to be good things. There’s possibly exceptions but I do feel if you follow most of his teachings you would be considered a good person by almost everyone. Be humble, be generous, be kind, put others first, give to the needy, and on and on.
These teachings are obviously positive things to strive for.
Oh I absolutely agree with you that the teachings of Jesus are awesome. Not because "he is god", but because the teachings are awesome regardless of who it is teaching them. I have not abandoned them, nor would I expect my wife to either. In fact, there's a great argument that Jesus wasn't the first ones to teach them. So practicing such teachings in my mind is neither christian, nor following Jesus. They are following good moral behavior.
So while I agree with you greatly, I disagree with you on the applicability. Christians have stolen a ton of stuff from other religions and traditions. Some of it bad, but some of if good too. Holding on to the good stuff does not require holding on to the fantasy.
I don't believe that the historical conditions which brought about the change are relevant to the theological legitimacy of the change. That's because I believe in a God who works through history.
Jewish christians would have fought Constantine... if the christians in the Roman empire at the time were jewish christians. But they weren't. There weren't any jewish christians left.
Well, I'm sure there are very detailed theological justifications but off the top of my head, the Bible is clear that we are stewards of the living creatures of the earth. So from a theological standpoint it is incumbent upon us to protect animals. It seems to me that a law against the mistreatment of animals is appropriate from a theological standpoint.
If anything, it has led mankind to believe animals have no rights.
Not that I think animals should have rights. But christianity is a big reason why people think they can do whatever they want to animals.
Jews escaped, of course. But they had no more reason to believe who should be King of Israel given Israel had no land for a King to rule over anymore. The only belief that kept on was the gentile version of christianity, which wasn't about who the King of Israel should be.
I can tell you think this is very important so I'm looking for more information for you. You seem to be way off base in terms of what Christianity retained of the Israelite practices and beliefs. I can try to find some material about that too. And about "gentile" Christianity, I'm sure you realize that all of the early churches were founded by the Twelve or their close followers. Yes they changed some practices, but it's odd to me that you think that's somehow controversial. I mean, it was somewhat controversial at the time, but the Bible does a pretty good job of covering that controversy. Peter seemed satisfied at any rate.
So you do think animals should have rights, or you don't think that they should have rights? You seem to be saying both here.
Sure. Why not. I've already studied a ton on the subject.
If the "base" you are referring to is the version of history held by christians, then yes, I'd agree. I believed that "base" for 30+ years of my life, as being a good christian we were expected to. I went to seminary and realized how weak the argument for that base really is. So I really doubt you'll convince me to return to a belief that I already realized was bunk. But again, go ahead. Why not. It won't hurt me to read anymore than reading fantasy novels would.
Yes. And the early church were Jewish christians, led by James.
Nothing about the early church is controversial. It died off.
Yes, it was controversial while both the jewish version and the gentile version existed. I as well, being a christian, used to believe that the controversy was "settled". But it's quite obvious to me know that the "settlement" was that gentile converts did become Jewish, but since they had never heard the law, they didn't know how to obey the law. So the "settlement" was they could begin obeying 4 of the easiest laws from day 1, and as they hear the rest of the law preached in the synagogue every week, they would grow to learn and obey the rest. The idea that they should be considered law breakers from the day of converting to Judaism was just ridiculous. Hence the "settlement" to quiet those pointing fingers as new converts for being law breakers. Paul however spun the "settlement" into supporting his own gospel, of the law no longer being a burden... his gentile version of christianity that he didn't learn from any man, but got it from visions. He was out teaching this to gentiles in force, until the Jewish christians in Asia called him out on it in front of James and the early church in Jerusalem. He then called on Rome to save him from his fate, and from the point on there is no evidence of Paul and the early church collaborating anymore.
If you are referring to what Peter said in the books of 1st and 2nd Peter, most scholars have concluded the two books were clearly written by two different authors, and very unlikely that either was written by a Jew from Judea. They were most likely written by someone, or people, from Alexandria, and well after both Peter and Paul had both died.
Not sure what you mean by "matters". It's simply observance. While Paul claimed to get his gospel from visions, it's pretty obvious where he got his gospel from. He simply stole things from other religions to create it. It's called Syncretism, and historical scholars know the most active time in history for Religious Syncretism to have occurred was around the time of Jesus, especially by those influenced by Hellenism... such as Paul was.
Personally I don't fall one way or the other on the matter, but I'm open to being persuaded.
