Christian values

[just4today]

I guess I interpret the scripture one way, and you interpret it another way. I guess that's the problem with trying to understand a 2000 year old document written in foreign languages. Add to that the fact that it was transcribed by hand over centuries. taken together, that means there will be a lot of different interpretations. Who is to say which one is correct?

How can you interpret "Do not..." more than one way?

You said:



I looked it up. It says just the opposite. Have you actually looked at the passage?

I would suggest you take the discussion of particular scriptures to its own thread, or in private messages.

 

[shelemm]

If you are being taxed by the government to spread around your wealth, it's not "Christian"...it's mandated. If you donate money of your own free will, it's "Christian".

Forced actions are not coming from the heart or the soul.

The goal is not to spread around the wealth. The goal of any government program is to address a problem in society that is not addressed in another way. It's for the betterment of EVERYONE, whether you agree or not.

Take WIC, for example, a program to assure good prenatal care among people in poverty. I think this is for the betterment of everyone in the country. If you disagree, well that's you're right, but I can honestly tell you that you have zero political representation on this issue. Go ahead, ask your representative if they support the abolition of WIC. Ask any member of Congress, the McCain campaign,the Obama campaign, or any other responsible person in politics.

Second of all, nobody is really being 'forced' to support any particular government program. You pay your taxes to the government, and they do what they want with it through laws that are voted on by our representatives. I don't see any force involved. Of course, you could protest and not pay your taxes. But that would more be protesting the very idea of government, I mean, name the person that lives and breathes that ideologically favors EVERY government program.

In terms of how 'Christian' it is to be supportive of a program like this, look at my example. I am not being forced to support this program. I support it willingly. I think it's a good idea, and it has had tremendous results that were not and I believe cannot be achieved without government intervention.

So now, it's your turn: Do you support WIC or are you being 'forced'?

 

[djm99]

This is a great topic but a controversial one. I don't want to get all "preachy" but the Bible does talk about helping the poor (in Leviticus 25:35). The bible talks about paying taxes ( Romans 13:7). Several verses in the bible speak on homosexuality (Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13) and being rich (Revelation 3:17,Proverbs 22:7, Matthew 19:23). Although the bible doesn't deal with abortion directly in Exodus (I can't remember exactly) it does deal with the harming of a pregnant women (she looses the baby) and harm being placed on the person that harmed the women). This could be interpretive that if a man causes a women to have a miscarriage and harm is placed on him, why wouldn’t harm be placed on a women getting an abortion. The issues are via interpretation.

For example: My sister and I argued like cats and dogs with time last year. It was around Halloween and I just had a miscarriage. I told her I took comfort in Matthew 19:14 which states KJV, "And Jesus said, Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these". She swore up and down that this verse couldn't be about miscarriage. She might be right, but if I took comfort in it, why was it such a big problem for her.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

How can you interpret "Do not..." more than one way?

You said:



I looked it up. It says just the opposite. Have you actually looked at the passage?

"Do not" is an english phrase. Your version of the Bible says "do not" but how do the many, many other versions translate it? My suggestion to you would be to check out biblegateway.com. You'll be able to read most of the versions available there. One thing you will notice is that they all differ, sometimes radically. That's the problem with language, it changes. Over millenia languages change drastically, so translation of ancient texts is never an exact science.

 

[jimmiej]

"Do not" is an english phrase. Your version of the Bible says "do not" but how do the many, many other versions translate it? My suggestion to you would be to check out biblegateway.com. You'll be able to read most of the versions available there. One thing you will notice is that they all differ, sometimes radically. That's the problem with language, it changes. Over millenia languages change drastically, so translation of ancient texts is never an exact science.

I'm familiar with biblegateway.com. I looked up with several different versions. Nothing changed. Have you actually looked it up?

 

[Uncle Remus]

Bible Quiz

Read the following story and take the quiz below:

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.

Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).

So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes.

 

[Took]

Bible Quiz

Read the following story and take the quiz below:

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.

Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).

So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes.

Well put, Uncle Remus.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

I'm familiar with biblegateway.com. I looked up with several different versions. Nothing changed. Have you actually looked it up?

I agree, Leviticus 18:22 is pretty clear. Do not lie with mankind as with womankind. The phrase "as with womankind" is there for a reason. That means it's ok to lie with mankind, but NOT as with womankind. If it was a flat-out prohibition against homosexuality it would read simply: Do not lie with mankind.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

Bible Quiz

Read the following story and take the quiz below:

An engineering professor is treating her husband, a loan officer, to dinner for finally giving in to her pleas to shave off the scraggly beard he grew on vacation. His favorite restaurant is a casual place where they both feel comfortable in slacks and cotton/polyester-blend golf shirts. But, as always, she wears the gold and pearl pendant he gave her the day her divorce decree was final. They're laughing over their menus because they know he always ends up diving into a giant plate of ribs but she won't be talked into anything more fattening than shrimp.

Quiz: How many biblical prohibitions are they violating? Well, wives are supposed to be 'submissive' to their husbands (I Peter 3:1). And all women are forbidden to teach men (I Timothy 2:12), wear gold or pearls (I Timothy 2:9) or dress in clothing that 'pertains to a man' (Deuteronomy 22:5). Shellfish and pork are definitely out (Leviticus 11:7, 10) as are usury (Deuteronomy 23:19), shaving (Leviticus 19:27) and clothes of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19). And since the Bible rarely recognizes divorce, they're committing adultery, which carries the rather harsh penalty of death by stoning (Deuteronomy 22:22).

So why are they having such a good time? Probably because they wouldn't think of worrying about rules that seem absurd, anachronistic or - at best - unrealistic. Yet this same modern-day couple could easily be among the millions of Americans who never hesitate to lean on the Bible to justify their own anti-gay attitudes.

Excellent!!!

 

[Uncle Remus]

Well put, Uncle Remus.

Oh, I wish I could take credit for it, but that's been around for a long time.
I ain't got a problem with folks havin' their cherry picked verses from the good book.

I got my own favorite verses from the Bible myself, I really like this one from the Book of Mark:

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

[TLSnell1981]

I guess, I more cynical than most on this board. I don't think the government really cares about who they are/aren't helping. It's all about power and control. They find which issues they can use for votes. They shift a little here and there...and use it to their advantage. Both parties are involved in this game.

I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in helping those who are in need but, I don't believe it should be mandated by the government.

 

[Uncle Remus]

I guess, I more cynical than most on this board. I don't think the government really cares about who they are/aren't helping. It's all about power and control. They find which issues they can use... to their advantage... for votes. They shift a little here and there...and use it for their advantage. Both parties are involved in this game.

I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in helping those who are in need but, I don't believe it should be mandated by the government.

Gosh, that's how I see religion 'n church.

 

[jimmiej]

I agree, Leviticus 18:22 is pretty clear. Do not lie with mankind as with womankind. The phrase "as with womankind" is there for a reason. That means it's ok to lie with mankind, but NOT as with womankind. If it was a flat-out prohibition against homosexuality it would read simply: Do not lie with mankind.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree because I think you're way off base here.

 

[SteveInBrooklyn]

Oh, I wish I could take credit for it, but that's been around for a long time.
I ain't got a problem with folks havin' their cherry picked verses from the good book.

I got my own favorite verses from the Bible myself, I really like this one from the Book of Mark:

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

I never saw that verse before. Oh well, I'm off to the zoo. I'm going to poke the King Cobra in the eye.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Gosh, that's how I see religion 'n church.

That's your right. I am a very spiritual person and love my church....

 

[jimmiej]

I guess, I more cynical than most on this board. I don't think the government really cares about who they are/aren't helping. It's all about power and control. They find which issues they can use... to their advantage... for votes. They shift a little here and there...and use it for their advantage. Both parties are involved in this game.

I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in helping those who are in need but, I don't believe it should be mandated by the government.

IA. I have no problem with a basic governmental "hand up". Unfortunately, we took a good idea in principle & went WAY overboard.

 

[GeorgeG]

Christian values tend to be very subjective depending on the wants and needs of those interpreting and applying them. I worked in a church band for two years and am an atheist, but the pastor told some that I have better Christian values than some people in the congregation. Doing what is right is also subject to interpretation, but you don't need any religion to legitimize it. I have no objection to people subscribing to any religion (I'm even helping some friends in a church band this morning), but I do have a problem with those who insist our country must follow Christian, or any other, values in particular. One of the reason this country was founded was to escape being told which religion to follow. It just happens that the founding fathers happened to be Christians.

 

[bicker]

People who claim to subscribe to the entirety of any code are indeed subjecting themselves to scrutiny with regard to each bit of that code.

In reality, there is a lot of wisdom in the Bible; there's also a lot of bunk. The fact that someone isn't Christian doesn't negate all the wisdom that is there in the Bible. Similarly, a Christian can indeed choose to recognize that the Bible includes both wisdom and bunk, and still be Christian, because there is no authority within Christendom that can impose a restriction against that.

 

[shelemm]

I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in helping those who are in need but, I don't believe it should be mandated by the government.

Government passes laws not to 'help people' per se, but to make the entire country a better place to live. It's for the benefit of EVERYONE. I think there are really so few people who would like to be chauffered in a limousine whizzing by folks begging in the streets for alms. Who wants to live with blight? Haven't you seen those films about Calcutta?

The state of poverty and blight in this country used to be pretty awful, and that would have been just the tip of the iceberg. Remember,there was a time when none of the mechanisms we have in place now existed. It was not a pretty picture when there was no safety net.

Well, we found out that many of those mechanisms had flaws, and after a long period they were reformed. Maybe they are not perfect now. Maybe there is still a need for reform.

George Bernard Shaw once said that a map of the world without Utopia on it would be a very poor map indeed. It is the one place that Mankind is always setting sail for, and once having reached it, sees a better place off in the distance and sets sail for that.

 

[TLSnell1981]

IA. I have no problem with a basic governmental "hand up". Unfortunately, we took a good idea in principle & went WAY overboard.

I agree. I'm not against helping one "help themselves". I see a lot of waste and abuse in many programs. This is why I don't want the government's hand in every aspect of our lives. It's toxic.