Woolwich stabbing/machete attack

[grebovale]

I don't know for sure but I supect he was joking.

 

:) :) :)

[Andyregs]

It's not an 'old chestnut' it's what many Christians belive..it's almost the whole point of the coming of Christ. I know of no Christian who ignores that 'God got it wrong' cos that's not what they believe.

 

 

 

I am well áware of that quote from the sermon on the mount.

 

You have interpreted it a certain way, but another interpretation is that Christ did not suggest here that the binding nature of the law of Moses would remain forever in effect. Such a view would contradict everything we learn from the balance of the New Testament. Especially important is the translation to use the word 'abolish' which is open to much interpretation and has come to have a very modern meaning

 

Christians believe it, in order to make their religion fit with what they want to believe. It's a huge contradiction, and there is no logical was to bring it in line with modern morality or with the idea that god is omniscient and omnipotent.

As I've said before the only way religion is changeable is by using things that pop into your head (where else does it come from), which gives them (thankfully) the opportunity to use secular morality to cherry pick what they want. And there are so many contradictions in the bible that its very easy to do that.

The three main monotheistic religions all originate from the same tribes hence the same holy sites, the shared prophets/leaders, and the same basis for morality.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

As to slavery....it was very different then to the slavery that occurred in the Soutyhern US etc until abolition

 

Indeed I'd argue that it's a poor word to use to describe such people back in Biblical times, or maybe a poor word to describe such Africans taken to the US. Slavery in Biblical times was a means by which the poor were enabled to survive..slavery/servitude was inevitable. So it's not a justification but a recognition of reality, a relity quite different to that of African slaves in the US. The passages have to be read in the context of the times. Indeed most passages related to slavery impose rules on the 'owners'.

 

Of course I suppose God could have just set up the world such that there was no need for slavery/servitude but that's a separate argument

[Andyregs]

As to slavery....it was very different then to the slavery that occurred in the Soutyhern US etc until abolition

 

Indeed I'd argue that it's a poor word to use to describe such people back in Biblical times, or maybe a poor word to describe such Africans taken to the US. Slavery in Biblical times was a means by which the poor were enabled to survive..slavery/servitude was inevitable. So it's not a justification but a recognition of reality, a relity quite different to that of African slaves in the US. The passages have to be read in the context of the times. Indeed most passages related to slavery impose rules on the 'owners'.

 

Of course I suppose God could have just set up the world such that there was no need for slavery/servitude but that's a separate argument

 

 

" When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again."

 

"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. "

 

Of course at the time slavery was the done thing. My point was that if God was opposed to it, why not say (or even say nothing)? Why give such guidance as above?

 

All it does is show such rules don't come from the sky. Same with all religions.

[Yukon]

"I believe Europe should strive for: A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now)."

 

Anders Brevik

 

I think that would suggest Tone & G4E are wrong

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Christians believe it, in order to make their religion fit with what they want to believe. It's a huge contradiction, and there is no logical was to bring it in line with modern morality or with the idea that god is omniscient and omnipotent.

 

I don't belive they do ignore that 'God got it wrong' cos they don't beliwve that he did

 

yes there are massive contradictions and inaccuracies. The most recent i read about concerned Joseph and family having to return to Bethlehem for the census; there is no record of the Romans ever doing this and it's suggested that it was put in merely to meet the prophecy that jesus would be born in Bethlehem. Makes sense to me

 

As I've said before the only way religion is changeable is by using things that pop into your head (where else does it come from),

 

Years/decades of study and guidance from those who have already completed years/decades of study?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

 

Of course at the time slavery was the done thing. My point was that if God was opposed to it, why not say (or even say nothing)? Why give such guidance as above?

 

All it does is show such rules don't come from the sky. Same with all religions.

 

 

I'm very aware of such passages and equally aware that slavery in the context in which they were written was not the same as slavery as we have come to know it

 

As to why God simply didn't say don't do it or why he just didn't allow such a thing to come to be..I guess those that believe , believe that the world God created is not that simple; if wrong (sin) didn't exist we wouldn't have the opportunity not to do it...we would not be presented with the challenge to over come sin if it didn't exist. A very deep question indeed that's very difficult to answer.

 

Whilst I agree that 'such rules don't come from the sky' I don't agree that this proves that

[JOHNNYAITCH]

"I believe Europe should strive for: A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now)."

 

Anders Brevik

 

I think that would suggest Tone & G4E are wrong

 

Did he claim that his religion compelled him to do what he did? That it was in the texts to do what he did? That he was kil,ling cos his religion told him to?

[Tone]

Anders Brevik missed one important command. Love your neighbour.

 

The fascination that folks have with slavery is interesting. You seem to equate it with slavery in North America in the 18th century.

 

One of my grandfather's sisters was a servant (actually to the then vicar of Norton). Have you ever stopped to think what that life was like and how it would go down in todays PC culture? What about young boys who went down the coal mines, some as young as 5 years old, for up to 12 hours a day? What about the conditions in the early days of the pottery industry in Stoke?

 

Things have changed and you cannot judge culture from more than 2,000 years ago with that today.

 

The main thing that everybody seems to miss entirely is the matter of forgiveness. That was illustrated in the quote about the woman who was about to be stoned until Jesus intervened.

[Ted]

"slavery was good for blacks. Thats not me its justified in th Bible" quote from a Republican candidate for Senate circa 2007/8. ps as for the theological discussions, then why is Old Testament quoted or New Testament as in St Paul founder of Roman Catholic Church who was the one person who didn't physically meet Jesus but could oust his family in order to take control . Politics inerpretation that leads to powet? Always been there fascinated how thid thread had evolved from the woolwich incident

[For Us All]

Did he claim that his religion compelled him to do what he did? That it was in the texts to do what he did? That he was kil,ling cos his religion told him to?

 

Islamists do tend to overdo the religious motive.

[Guppy 4 England]

"I believe Europe should strive for: A cultural conservative approach where monoculturalism, moral, the nuclear family, a free market, support for Israel and our Christian cousins of the east, law and order and Christendom itself must be central aspects (unlike now)."

 

Anders Brevik

 

I think that would suggest Tone & G4E are wrong

So he said he shot them in the name of religion ?

[Tone]

"slavery was good for blacks. Thats not me its justified in th Bible" quote from a Republican candidate for Senate circa 2007/8. ps as for the theological discussions, then why is Old Testament quoted or New Testament as in St Paul founder of Roman Catholic Church who was the one person who didn't physically meet Jesus but could oust his family in order to take control . Politics inerpretation that leads to powet? Always been there fascinated how thid thread had evolved from the woolwich incident

 

I would love you to actually quote the name of the person who said that, rather than a vague statement like that.

 

But more to the point, I think you will find that Peter is considered to be the founder of the Roman Catholic church. Also, the Bible tells us that Paul did meet Jesus. That's what turned him 180 degrees from a persecutor.

 

This thread has leaned in this direction because there seems to be a feeling amongst some, even now, that there is no threat from Islamic terrorism. Apparently there is no more of a threat than there is from Christians.

[Andyregs]

I'm very aware of such passages and equally aware that slavery in the context in which they were written was not the same as slavery as we have come to know it

 

As to why God simply didn't say don't do it or why he just didn't allow such a thing to come to be..I guess those that believe , believe that the world God created is not that simple; if wrong (sin) didn't exist we wouldn't have the opportunity not to do it...we would not be presented with the challenge to over come sin if it didn't exist. A very deep question indeed that's very difficult to answer.

 

Whilst I agree that 'such rules don't come from the sky' I don't agree that this proves that

 

To answer that I'll just have to repeat everything I've just put which you ignored. If it was free will why would god then give rules for something like that? It doesn't make sense unless you accept that religion is man made and they used it to justify their morality at that time. Hence the slavery, violence and attitude to women.

[Andyregs]

 

Things have changed and you cannot judge culture from more than 2,000 years ago with that today.

 

 

Not judge to culture then, as that's understandable. We are asking why god didn't know better then? Especially as the book would be used in years to come to guide people's morals.