: :: You think the Bible is an unchanging standard? Can you read Hebrew and back up this belief; or do you believe the Bible is unchanging because you've been told to believe that the Bible is unchanging?: I get around with Hebrew - not wonderfully. Which manuscript is in question Gideon?
Well, for example, take the theological shift in the Pentateuch; from a society controlled by elders in which blood sacrifices were acceptable to a society in which the laws were codified in a written book.
Examine the writing style of the Pentateuch; the first four books contain obvious stylistic warts; evidence of rewriting by the priests who "interpreted" the writings of the three previous authors; the "Yahwist", the "Elohist", the "Deuteronomist". The myth of Adam is one such wart; a morality tale slapped onto the front of the Bible.
Similarly, witness the editing out of Lilith; the original creation myth made Eve Adam's third wife.
Also, witness the change to monotheism in the Bible; the Bible originally said that many gods existed, but that J-hw-h was the one who should be worshipped; something that was purged from the Bible as the monotheistic religion became stronger.
(On an obvious level, the Pentateuch was supposed to have been written by Moses; yet it contains an account of his death...)
: :: (I can read Hebrew; and there are enough differences between Biblical and modern Hebrew, let alone the differences acquired from translating to English through Ancient Greek.)
: Translations may improve with time but the manuscripts do not change.
: Translating is an art. More colloquially precise translations arrive as the art progresses.
No. Read Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas R. Hofstadter; meaning within language is akin to axioms within mathematics, or a record on a record player - there exist axioms within any language that cannot be expressed according to the rules of that language.
(To use Hofstadter's record player example, there exist sounds which cannot be played on a record player; no matter how good the record player is; an example would be the sound that caused sympathetic vibrations in the record player to destroy itself.)
In a similar way, one language can never be a perfect mirror of another; there are meanings within language A that will never translate to language B; as language B is fundamentally incapable of producing them; this is the linguistic form of Gödel's Theorem.
It explains why perfect translation between two languages will never be possible; approximation of meaning is the best anyone can aim for.
:
: :: Wanking is wrong! We're all going straight to Hell!
: (for which of us hasn't, at some point...?)
: How'd we get here from my original post?
Well, the Bible says quite clearly what happened to the onanist. I haven't seen any votes taking place on the legality (or otherwise) of masturbation.
You say it's wrong. I'm saying that, regardless of what the Bible says, everyone does it, even devout Christians. As such, your claim that;
"All the things you mention (incidiously and contemptuously linking man's depravity with meat eating) are not right according to the Bible but their legality can be established by majority opinion."
means that anyone who is prepared to condemn man's depravity (as above) whilst doing anything the Bible expressly forbids (such as lending money and charging interest or masturbating) is a hypocrite of the first order.
(and how many Christians are *perfectly* happy to charge interest?; guess that's a little precept that got forgotten fast enough.)
: :: I like burning forests so much that I'm going to continue burning forests regardless of what anyone else says. I don't care if it damages the planet or causes suffering - I must be allowed to torch forests in the name of freedom.
: You could give me a half inch of slack here and admit that a government that tells you what not to eat meat is tyrannical or at least a bit oppressive but nooo... you'd rather be contrary. I know darned well you don't like being told what.
A Government that curbs your behaviour in any what at all is repressive; it represses your actions. It doesn't stop being repressive just because it is desirable.
To illustrate; the existing Government represses people's freedom to kill other people. It is repressing the would-be murderers (or trying to); yet no-one would seriously suggest that this repression is "bad"
You may well say that there is a difference between preventing people killing other people and preventing people from burning forests. This is not really the case; destroy forests and you lessen the Earth's capability to support life. Simple as that. Use the Earth's resources in a wasteful and non-renewable fashion and you reduce the Earth's capacity to support life. It's not rocket science.
(oh and a little picky point; a government is oppressive if it restricts the freedoms of people it has no official mandate over; if it restricts the freedoms of its own people it is repressive.)
: :: *really*? Do you habitually ignore the laws of the country you live in?; a country which took especial care to put the separation of Church and State into the Constitution...
: Be more clever Gideon. Our constitution prohibits the government from establishing a state religion - that is all. It took the concerted efforts of godless liberals to remove any hint of theism from common discourse in public institutions.
(Good grief; what does the word "liberal" mean to you? see the dictionary definition below for what it *actually* means)
You haven't answered the question. Do you obey the traffic laws, the tax laws and the political laws in general?
If you do, then your statement about secular law in your diet is so much blarney. If you don't, why aren't you in prison yet?
: :: Speaking personally, I'd find the idea of a religious state far more repellant; just look at the countries which are run by theocracies.
: Consider earth worship a religion and you might be closer to a religious state than you care to think.
Hardly. I'm a scientist; it's just a simple case of not shitting where I eat. It shouldn't take a genius to realize that polluting the environment on an ever-increasing scale is not a bright idea for the human race. That isn't religion; it's common sense.
Gideon.
(Liberal (n); "Tolerant of views differant from one's own; broad-minded . . . (those who prefer) democratic or republican forms of government, as distingished from monarchies, aristocracies, etc. . . . favoring political reform tending toward democracy and personal freedom for the individual; progressive." - Webster's New World Dictionary)
