“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#102 Aug 22, 2013
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep in mind that he's basing "morality" on the bible, a book that was written by bronze age MEN to justify their behavior and ability to CONTROL other people, especially women.
They invented a god and told people that if they wanted to have a better life after they were dead (oxymoron much?) that they needed to do what the god told them was right, because the god wanted them to rape and abuse women, abuse animals, allow townspeople to rape their daughters instead of their visitors, sacrifice their kids...etc.
This god though never talked to the people only to a couple of "special" people wo then told everyone else what the god wanted them to do. Since they wanted above all else to control women's reproduction (in most patriarchal cultures this is true) they started saying this and that were either moral or immoral...some people still believe thatshit and try to force the issue as if it has some bearing in the modern day. <shrug> IOW...consider the source.
I am not a biblical scholar but I think you are conflating the Old and New testaments.

Old Testament does not suggest much about an afterlife. That is one of the core beliefs which differentiate Judaism and Christianity.

God talking to some few is mostly OT. Someone correct me but it wasn't God talking to Saul on the road to Damascus when he was converted .

The rest of the stories you mention are OT.

Controlling reproduction was based on the choice not to raise another man's children or the desire to continue one's own lineage. Judaism passes through the mother's line anyway probably for that reason. They were never really sure who's your daddy.

OT famously allowed wives and handmaidens as bed partners. Again, someone correct me, but monogamy was only post-Moses and maybe not required until NT .

I don't necessarily disagree with your outrage but its always best to get the facts straight.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#103 Aug 22, 2013
Infidelity is illegal in 22 states, but it's not a big deal. It's rarely ever prosecuted (and only at the urging of the aggrieved spouse). One state's fine is only $10 for being found guilty of infidelity.

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#104 Aug 22, 2013
RACE wrote:
What I want to know is where is edog getting these "Social Morals" from?
Are they written somewhere? Carved in a tablet? Is there an online page? No, they exist nowhere but in his cluttered little mind.
The only proof of any Social Morality is in our written laws. Murder is immoral within our society because we have a law declaring such.
Infidelity is not immoral within our society because there is no law forbidding it, but it is frowned upon as it can be used in a court to prove breach of contract (marriage). But to a martian, reading the laws of our country, they would have no idea that infidelity was "Immoral"
He voices mainstream Christian rules, more conservative than some especially on homosexuality and abortion, possibly Catholic or Evangelical, but pretty much what you hear if you turn on Sunday Mega-church type sermons.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#105 Aug 22, 2013
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a biblical scholar but I think you are conflating the Old and New testaments.
And? She referenced "the bible" in her post. While Jews do not consider the NT part of their bible, christians do. Every bible i've ever gotten my hand on contains both old and new and therefore i see no problem with her treating the 2 as one book.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#106 Aug 22, 2013
RACE wrote:
What I want to know is where is edog getting these "Social Morals" from?
From the bible. He says he doesn't but he so does, even if he doesn't realize it.
Anonymous

Saint Petersburg, FL

#107 Aug 22, 2013
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a biblical scholar but I think you are conflating the Old and New testaments.
Old Testament does not suggest much about an afterlife. That is one of the core beliefs which differentiate Judaism and Christianity.
God talking to some few is mostly OT. Someone correct me but it wasn't God talking to Saul on the road to Damascus when he was converted .
The rest of the stories you mention are OT.
Controlling reproduction was based on the choice not to raise another man's children or the desire to continue one's own lineage. Judaism passes through the mother's line anyway probably for that reason. They were never really sure who's your daddy.
OT famously allowed wives and handmaidens as bed partners. Again, someone correct me, but monogamy was only post-Moses and maybe not required until NT .
I don't necessarily disagree with your outrage but its always best to get the facts straight.
This. There is a huge difference between the OT and NT. Two major different "eras" if you will.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#108 Aug 22, 2013
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
Infidelity is illegal in 22 states, but it's not a big deal. It's rarely ever prosecuted (and only at the urging of the aggrieved spouse). One state's fine is only $10 for being found guilty of infidelity.
Let's not stop there! In Florida, women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer.

It's against societies morals, I guess.
Anonymous

Saint Petersburg, FL

#109 Aug 22, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's not stop there! In Florida, women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer.
It's against societies morals, I guess.
I also believe I read something about unmarried women not being allowed to skydive on Sundays.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#110 Aug 22, 2013
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a biblical scholar but I think you are conflating the Old and New testaments.
Old Testament does not suggest much about an afterlife. That is one of the core beliefs which differentiate Judaism and Christianity.
God talking to some few is mostly OT. Someone correct me but it wasn't God talking to Saul on the road to Damascus when he was converted .
The rest of the stories you mention are OT.
Controlling reproduction was based on the choice not to raise another man's children or the desire to continue one's own lineage. Judaism passes through the mother's line anyway probably for that reason. They were never really sure who's your daddy.
OT famously allowed wives and handmaidens as bed partners. Again, someone correct me, but monogamy was only post-Moses and maybe not required until NT .
I don't necessarily disagree with your outrage but its always best to get the facts straight.
I didn't conflate anything. I said "bible" not either OT or NT specifically. Since the bible contains both, I figured saying "bible" covered it.

And, yeah I know why controlling reproduction was an issue. That's one of those things they kind of point out in anthropology school when we're studying cultures.

I said that the god talked to some people in the bible I didn't specify when it was supposed to have happened. I mean if we want to pick it apart most of the stuff wasn't actually *written* by people from the bronze age (actual pen to paper, or quill to parchment or papyrus) until the iron age before steel became the de facto metal on a global scale, but I think that would really be splitting hairs.
Crunchy Bacon

Hoffman Estates, IL

#111 Aug 22, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
What is irrelevant is what other people think, including society, within the confines of a relationship between two consenting adults.
Make that "two OR MORE consenting adults."

Hey, bro, what do you think I go to the gym for? LOL!

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#112 Aug 22, 2013
As I said at the beginning, I will not debate whether infidelity is moral or not, society has already deemed it immoral. Now you're wanting to know where this magic book of morals are. There isn't one. They're not written in stone anywhere, or a book, or a giant billboard. Norms, rules, traditions, and morals are passed down. They may change as society changes, but for now, cheating on your sick spouse is considered immoral.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#113 Aug 22, 2013
Crunchy Bacon wrote:
<quoted text>Make that "two OR MORE consenting adults."
Hey, bro, what do you think I go to the gym for? LOL!
If you are the real Crunchy, I thought you said you hadn't been with anyone else since you met the Mrs.?

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#114 Aug 22, 2013
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't conflate anything. I said "bible" not either OT or NT specifically. Since the bible contains both, I figured saying "bible" covered it.
And, yeah I know why controlling reproduction was an issue. That's one of those things they kind of point out in anthropology school when we're studying cultures.
I said that the god talked to some people in the bible I didn't specify when it was supposed to have happened. I mean if we want to pick it apart most of the stuff wasn't actually *written* by people from the bronze age (actual pen to paper, or quill to parchment or papyrus) until the iron age before steel became the de facto metal on a global scale, but I think that would really be splitting hairs.
Granted that the term bible covers both NT and OT, but the standards Dog is using are NT in origin for the most part. In that context I think it important to distinguish the source. In any event, Race(I think) asked where Dog was getting his moral tenets from. As I see it, those cme from conservative NT based t approach. I am not using the word theology because "theo" is "god" and I disagree that his moral are words of God

“...,to wit”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#115 Aug 22, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>And? She referenced "the bible" in her post. While Jews do not consider the NT part of their bible, christians do. Every bible i've ever gotten my hand on contains both old and new and therefore i see no problem with her treating the 2 as one book.
I think I responded to Mimi on this mostly.

Having grown up Jewish, I own an OT-only bible. I have seen books that are NT only. Most bibles contain both ,but there is a difference among Catholics and some Protestant as to which books should be included.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me!

#116 Aug 22, 2013
In order for that change to happen, there must first be dissent and opposition to the established norms already in place. That means that at some point someone, or a group of someones must say "No, this norm is not for us, we do not subscribe to it", and this is the hole in your entire argument. Society morals does not equate to 100% consensus by the people within that society, so disagreement to those supposed morals does not equate to immoral.

You dont want to talk about segregation, and interracial marriage because even you know that those "Social Morals" were not "Moral" at all, and the people who went against them were NOT immoral people.
edogxxx wrote:
They may change as society changes, but for now, cheating on your sick spouse is considered immoral.
Crunchy Bacon

Hoffman Estates, IL

#117 Aug 22, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are the real Crunchy, I thought you said you hadn't been with anyone else since you met the Mrs.?
(negro)PLEASE! I make you look like Ned Flanders. I just don't involve the Mrs. Cheeper to keeper!

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Chicago, IL

#118 Aug 22, 2013
RACE wrote:
In order for that change to happen, there must first be dissent and opposition to the established norms already in place. That means that at some point someone, or a group of someones must say "No, this norm is not for us, we do not subscribe to it", and this is the hole in your entire argument. Society morals does not equate to 100% consensus by the people within that society, so disagreement to those supposed morals does not equate to immoral.
Um, I've already hit on this, sweetie pie. Just because there are some who feel infidelity shouldn't be immoral, does not mean that's the general consensus of the societal norm.

And I don't want to discuss segregation because, again, the topic is irrelevant to the discussion.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#119 Aug 22, 2013
Crunchy Bacon wrote:
<quoted text>(negro)PLEASE! I make you look like Ned Flanders. I just don't involve the Mrs. Cheeper to keeper!
I find there are less problems when you are transparent. It depends on the wife, of course.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#120 Aug 22, 2013
RACE wrote:
You dont want to talk about segregation, and interracial marriage because even you know that those "Social Morals" were not "Moral" at all, and the people who went against them were NOT immoral people.
<quoted text>
But...but....but the VA state legislature SAID they were, you know the society in Virginia. You mean "society cna be...wrong? Say it ain't so.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#121 Aug 22, 2013
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
Granted that the term bible covers both NT and OT, but the standards Dog is using are NT in origin for the most part. In that context I think it important to distinguish the source. In any event, Race(I think) asked where Dog was getting his moral tenets from. As I see it, those cme from conservative NT based t approach. I am not using the word theology because "theo" is "god" and I disagree that his moral are words of God
Well Catholic and Protestant bibles both contain OT and NT, but yes there are some differences in which books are included...which IMO is the most basic indication of what makes it a moral arbiter of anything when all those "Christians" can't even decide amongst themselves.

Nevertheless, whichever testament Dog is basing his morals on, they are in the bible, as a whole.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Word (Dec '08) 42 min andet1987 4,726
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 42 min LRS 178,105
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 58 min Mister Tonka 98,239
Adult Nursing Relationships (May '11) 59 min Handcuff ottoman 137
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr OzRitz 46,741
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr KiMerde 49,882
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL 69,402
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Patriangelily 1,110,245
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••