Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
No. What I said was that the religion had changed what is a sin, not that the book changed anything. As far as the book, well that has changed everyt
time a new king had it re-translated no?
What? religion can do what ever it wants, , I'm not talkin bout that, the book says what it says, as far as re-translations that is an iffy subject,
which is controversial and takes scholarly work, but is no different than understanding any ancient text that has been translated and re-translated, I
am sure you have the same suspicion towards Sumerian, Egyptian, Mayan, and many other texts out there, no? - I am not denying the book couldn't have
been altered through translation, but that is something that is still in the discovery and for another thread.
I know why, because Christians made up their own meaning for "fulfill"
Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. Somehow Christians took that to mean that the old laws do not count anymore.
we can turn this into a Jesus debate...but I don't want to, and it will derail the OP, likewise you put the title christians
things as if they all believe the mosaic laws just don't count, it is not as simple as you put it.
But you are the one that said the difference between traditions and religion is that traditions change and religion does not. Right?
The teachings are consistent, and it is hard for people to not
accept that theistic beliefs must be with religion. symbolism, rituals,
miracles, worship, and sacrifice, sound like religion, but those commonalities can be semantically found on a secular scale without God. Now the
biblical teachings didn't stay in similar fashion, as metaphors were much different two millennia ago, and will change with language.
what you are trying to differentiate is the difference between religion and traditions, and what I am telling you is the teachings from the
haven't always lined up the actions man has used them in...what is considered religion can change, but the teachings of the foundation, just
do not add up with what that religion has done, the actions have contradicted the teachings many times. one can call that the fall of man, and the
nature of sin and corruption as it is against what God attends, you can call it what ever you want - again, this does not account for other theistic
Let's skip all that and get to the jist of things...
I'll just put it this way
- using an outside source (theism) as an authoritive moral compass, attempts to conserve a way of conduct to proper living.
- using an inside source that will adapt its conduct given the lesson
in the situation of its environment for its survival.
( I have a link that is an example of this lesson if you want it)
on the macro scale both systems are objective guides.
If you don't like my outlook please provide your own.
this does not account the individual, but only the common social guidance. I'm not trying to define morality: I already mentioned on the
first page that morality was psychologically subjective.
- which really means both systems are right and wrong, but the real
why you would defend either one?
I am still curious why you believe that in the nurture of common behavior that, what you consider wrong today, will not
tomorrow? Do you agree or disagree that the "wrong nows" can be "right laters"?
[edit on 19-12-2008 by juveous]
[edit on 19-12-2008 by juveous]