Posted on 03/09/2006 6:55:14 PM PST by Greg o the Navy
AN EXAMINATIONS board is including references to “creationism” in a new GCSE science course for schools.
Check out King Prout's 810 and 821, even that may be less than it seems.
I'm just covering my bases, since there may be new translations in the future that shed new light. Not holding my breath, though.
I saw those before making my latest post. There is no place in the Bible that says ownership of another person is inherently immoral. There are rules, but they are pretty lax.
As for those who are slaves -- they are instructed to accept their lot and obey their masters.
i don't see anything either, as I said, just covering my bases against future translations or new material.
I have no positive expectations. That was the culture ofthe time.
I'll have to go with you on this, no matter WHAT English translation is used.
It seems to me that the whole thrust of this slave-master topic is an implied:
"I don't like slavery; I think it's wrong; I think it has ALWAYS been wrong, the bible does not speakabout it being wrong, therefore I do not like what has been recorded in the Bible, therefore I am not going to follow anything else it says for if it's wrong on THIS subject then it's probably wrong on the others."
BREATHE!
My sincerity lies with the original languages.
I have no dog in the KJV vs the others fight as I feel NONE are perfect (or can they EVER be). In the future, any other 'translation' or paraphrase will not be PERFECT, either.
This being said, ANY translation is suffcient to get one directed towards Jesus and getting their soul saved!
As far as 'literalism' is concerned; some things in Scripture are literally metaphors and allegories and some are not.
People FIGHT over which are which in many places, but this STILL does not detract away from the Salvation message, other than a 'sinner' (who ain't? ;^) can use as an excuse (that will not hold up, I imagine) that "Them guys fussed and fought all the time: who would want to be one of them?"
not the point in question.
you rebutted some statement concerning a lack of clear Biblical condemnation of slavery with "I GUESS YOU MISSED THIS" accompanied by your selection (from among a rather diverse set of same) of a translation of Timothy 1:9-10.
The implication: That YOUR version should be well known to any who have consulted any Bible.
I provided ample evidence that your SNARKINESS was, given that multitde of dissimilar translations, quite unjustifiable.
Just *admit it*, and apologise for the snarky barb.
That *is* required of sinners, yes?
whether or no, it IS required of men worthy of respect.
this, I must respectfully disagree with.
I believe that most (if not all) humans are born with a *potential* to form concept systems of right and wrong, but maintain that no human has a "better angel of his nature" that isn't carefully beaten into him by his parents and society.
Take 2.
My position is simply not to contort the Bible into saying what we wish it did.
Since I believe that fallible humans transribed and transmited it, I have no problem whatsoever with it _not_ saying what we wish it did.
And, as I said, your quote was off target.
Ready for flames.
Children have an innate desire to please, imitate, and be accepted by their parents. Good modeling and firm expectations are what is needed. Not beating it into them. Most especially not convincing them that they wouldn't be good unless beaten. Same thing as some Christians saying people wouldn't be good without the threat of Hell.
needs are innate, yes. we are, after all, social creatures.
however, needs do not equate to natural/innate sense of ethics or morality - they are merely a major component of the *potential*.
the other major component: fear of pain, loss, and humiliation.
Most ethics/morality are derived from human species survival mechanisms.
Note: species, not individual. We are, indeed, social critters so there's plenty of evolutionary reward for being nice guys.
True. BUT... if undesirable behavior in children (under the survival-umbrella of the parents and society) receives the same reward as desirable behavior, the undesirable behavior becomes dominant more often than not: behaving destructively/selfishly is *easier* than behaving well.
Why should it receive the "same reward?"
stupid parents led to believe in Dr. Spock
giving attention to bad behavior without concommitant effective punishment IS a reward for a young child - it becomes a game of "push the parental-unit's buttons" then.
Define "bad behavior"
oops, should warn you that answers are going to be spotty after this...real world calls..
same here. later
in general: counter to the median normal correct behavior of the civilization at that time and place.
very generally: direct disobedience
more specifically and/or defensibly: behavior putting the parents, their property, or their substantial investment in the child itself at significant risk of waste or ruination
Ethics and morality are formalized versions of the inate sense of right and wrong. I have to admit that not everyone has empathy, so some people need external consequenses to keep them in line.
Most children can be taught to internalize the golden rule.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.