Palin, Southern Baptist and hypocrisy

Originally posted by josephw
I see. So what you're saying is that it is now ok to commit adultery.

Your own argument is very weak because you fall short of explaining why you think the law is has changed.

Look, you're missing the whole point that is being illustrated by the story of Jesus' intervention in the stoning of the woman.

I would like to explain it to you, but I've bee ...[text shortened]... e are any absolutes that govern the universe.

It's a frightfully pathetic frame of mind.

As far as I know, we have never corresponded here. I DO know that I've read some of your posts and "thums-upped" them by replying in the affirmative. But I don't stand for being called pathetic. Nemesis has better manners than you--at least he's civil. Rest assured, this will be my only correspondence with you.

Let's try again:

When a Jew stoned a woman caught in adultery back in 50 BCE, do you consider that to be
a moral good?

When a Jew stones a woman caught in adultery today, do you consider that to be a moral
good?

When a Gentile Christian stones a woman caught in adultery today, do you consider that that to
be a moral good?

My answer is 'No, No, and No.' It has always been morally unjustified to stone a woman (or
man) who has committed adultery, no matter who claims to have said otherwise.

What are your answers and why?

Originally posted by josephw
You know, the more you speak the more obvious it becomes to me that your knowledge of the scripture is not only lacking, but is in fact corrupted. (Don't take that personally.)

My knowledge of Scripture is not particularly lacking, but I'm sure you think of it as corrupted
because it doesn't adopt your 'God done said it' attitude. I don't work from that standpoint
and since you take on blind faith that this is the case, opinions that deviate from that hermeneutic
will necessarily appear corrupt. That having been said, you're one of the first people on these
forums to question my actual knowledge rather than my interpretation. That's pretty ballsy.

Do you not realise that the law was given to the Jews? Not the gentiles?

So? Yes or no question here: Are you saying the same action X committed each by a
Jew and Gentile can be judged differently?

By that logic, any argument stemming from Levitical Law about homosexuality is moot, since
it would only apply to Jews and not Gentiles. I wonder why Christians use it, then?

The law given to Israel, through Moses, was specifically designed by God for a specific people group at a specific time and place.

Yes or no question: So, stoning a woman back then was not a sin, but today it is, right?

This is a subject well beyond the scope of anything you are knowledgeable of as attested by your profound lack of understanding of Jesus' own words.

Do you think it's particularly Christian to be insulting?

Speak out against it? Why do you insist on making remarks such as this? Nowhere in the gospels will you find Jesus speaking out against the law, nor can you extrapolate from His words that He did.

Jesus made a statement that discouraged the people around Him from following the mandate
of Levitical Law and stone an adulterous woman. This is not an extrapolation; this is a Scriptural
fact. Jesus said something which encouraged people to disobey God's command: they did not
stone the woman.

Yes or no question: Do you believe that those Jews, who at Jesus' comment did not
follow God's command, sinned?

This whole argument is absurd. It all started when I said I believe what the scripture says about women. How in the world someone can then suggest that I support the stoning of a woman for adultery is an adulteration of reason and logic. I feel sorry for anyone whose mind is so biased against Christians that they have to fabricate an argument out of a simple statement from out of another context just to try to make the author of said statement look like a bigot or something.

No, you said:

I subscribe to all Biblical teachings about women!

One of those Biblical teachings is that adulterous (Jewish...) women ought to be stoned. Do
you subscribe to that? (Yes or no, and why suffices)

Another is that (Jewish...) women are unclean during their periods. Do you subscribe to that?
(Yes or no, and why suffices)

That you are getting hostile and insulting seems pretty sad to me. I can give answers to all
of these questions (frankly, I think the answers are pretty obvious) without getting upset. Why
does discussing your faith disturb you so much? (The answer to this question interests me the
least, frankly, so I'd rather you the other, simpler questions first.)

Nemesio

I think it is wrong to assume that because someone throws reason, logic and intelligence to the wind on one subject then they will do the same in all other areas of their life. Many reasonable, logical, intelligent scientists have quite happily discarded the lot when it comes to their love life.[/b]

Good point...

But, the trouble is I expect a politician to base their decisions on reasonableness and logic - not on their belief system. A scientist's love life is their own business - the background for a decision in a political context is most certainly not.

Originally posted by Nemesio
That having been said, you're one of the first people on these
forums to question my actual knowledge rather than my interpretation. That's pretty ballsy.

Not for him, it isn't. The man feels no shame. He's a walking self-parody. It's like a drunk picking a fight and shrugging off 12 blows to the head because he can't feel the pain.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Let's try again:

When a Jew stoned a woman caught in adultery back in 50 BCE, do you consider that to be
a moral good?

When a Jew stones a woman caught in adultery today, do you consider that to be a moral
good?

When a Gentile Christian stones a woman caught in adultery today, do you consider that that to
be a moral good?

My answ ast, frankly, so I'd rather you the other, simpler questions first.)

Nemesio

Let's try again:

When a Jew stoned a woman caught in adultery back in 50 BCE, do you consider that to be
a moral good?

When a Jew stones a woman caught in adultery today, do you consider that to be a moral
good?

When a Gentile Christian stones a woman caught in adultery today, do you consider that that to
be a moral good?

My answer is 'No, No, and No.' It has always been morally unjustified to stone a woman (or
man) who has committed adultery, no matter who claims to have said otherwise.

What are your answers and why?


The whole discussion, originally, wasn't about whether stoning someone to death is morally right or wrong. The question was whether or not I believed what the Bible teaches concerning women. I said yes.

Now, just so you won't think I'm evading the question as to the morality of stoning folks to death for adultery, my answer is this.
If God tells one to kill someone for breaking the law because God decided that that was the appropriate punishment, then I say that that one had better obey God rather than man.

Do you believe it was God that said one should be stoned for adultery, or do you believe it was man?

Of course you have to pick and chose what portions of the Bible are valid in order to say that stoning someone to death was added by man, which, when you do, makes you the authority, and not God.



My knowledge of Scripture is not particularly lacking, but I'm sure you think of it as corrupted
because it doesn't adopt your 'God done said it' attitude. I don't work from that standpoint
and since you take on blind faith that this is the case, opinions that deviate from that hermeneutic
will necessarily appear corrupt. That having been said, you're one of the first people on these
forums to question my actual knowledge rather than my interpretation. That's pretty ballsy.


Too ballsy! Your knowledge of the Bible may very well be greater than mine. The difference is that I believe it. Though I probably shouldn't have said that, I was thinking more in terms of context rather than content.

You say you don't work from the standpoint of the "God done said it" attitude. I find that puzzling since knowing the "Truth" is based on what God has said. Otherwise, again, that makes man the authority concerning all things spiritual. That is a dangerous position to work from.


So? Yes or no question here: Are you saying the same action X committed each by a
Jew and Gentile can be judged differently?

By that logic, any argument stemming from Levitical Law about homosexuality is moot, since
it would only apply to Jews and not Gentiles. I wonder why Christians use it, then?


I'm saying this, and to qualify my reply goes beyond the scope of this question, Israel was formed by God. Was it not?
First, God called out Abram.
Then later, after four hundred years, God gave Moses the law, containing 613 ordinances, for the purpose of governing the nation of Israel.
Remember, when God called out Abram after the debacle of the tower of Babel, God concluded the Gentiles in unbelief, and began the building of His nation Israel. Exclusively.

Now, concerning any argument stemming from the law as a guild for Christian conduct today, I have this to say.
I appears that there has been some kind of paradigm shift, doesn't there? This is a grand subject. One that I would happily love to engage in, but it would take hours, and I simply don't have the time at this time.


Yes or no question: So, stoning a woman back then was not a sin, but today it is, right?

Sin is disobedience. Is it not?
We live in an entirely different world that 2000 years ago. At least we do. In some places people still stone folks to death. Barbaric isn't it?
You see, we live in a nation of laws that regulates how far we can go when we decide to take the law into our own hands.

We are not under the law, but under grace. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. I would be put to death for the things I've done if we were under the Levitical law. Maybe you too?


Do you think it's particularly Christian to be insulting?

No it is not! I apologise. I get carried away. Please forgive.


Jesus made a statement that discouraged the people around Him from following the mandate
of Levitical Law and stone an adulterous woman. This is not an extrapolation; this is a Scriptural
fact. Jesus said something which encouraged people to disobey God's command: they did not
stone the woman.

Yes or no question: Do you believe that those Jews, who at Jesus' comment did not
follow God's command, sinned?


I'm thinking that what Jesus had written in the dirt was enough to change their minds. Probably the details of the plot they had engineered to "catch" Jesus off guard by framing the woman. Maybe the name of the one caught with the woman. Perhaps a Pharisee that was tired of her anyway. We don't know. It failed again.

Besides, and what's more important, is that Jesus is able to forgive sins. Isn't that right?


One of those Biblical teachings is that adulterous (Jewish...) women ought to be stoned. Do
you subscribe to that? (Yes or no, and why suffices)

Another is that (Jewish...) women are unclean during their periods. Do you subscribe to that?
(Yes or no, and why suffices)

That you are getting hostile and insulting seems pretty sad to me. I can give answers to all
of these questions (frankly, I think the answers are pretty obvious) without getting upset. Why
does discussing your faith disturb you so much? (The answer to this question interests me the
least, frankly, so I'd rather you the other, simpler questions first.)


Come now. Be honest. You never say anything that can be understood to be a little hostile and insulting?

I, maybe more than anyone else, has been insulted in this forum in the most hostile ways imaginable.

But that's ok. I have thick skin. Besides that I don't keep score.

Truthfully, I try to show the same grace to others that God has shown me. Forgiveness is great medicine.

Originally posted by josephw
The whole discussion, originally, wasn't about whether stoning someone to death is morally right or wrong. The question was whether or not I believed what the Bible teaches concerning women. I said yes.[/b]

I know what you said to that. I'm confused by your answer. The questions I posed above
pertain specifically to what the Bible teaches about women. Answers to those questions will
alleviate my confusion.

If God tells one to kill someone for breaking the law because God decided that that was the appropriate punishment, then I say that that one had better obey God rather than man.

So, you think that it was not a sin for a man to stone a woman in 50 BCE, correct?

What about a Jewish man stoning a Jewish woman today?

What about a Gentile man stoning a Gentile woman today?

Do you believe it was God that said one should be stoned for adultery, or do you believe it was man?

I answered this question directly in my last post:
Originally posted by Nemesio
My answer is 'No, No, and No.' It has always been morally unjustified to stone a woman (or
man) who has committed adultery, no matter who claims to have said otherwise.

That is, I don't believe that God (a God of love, to boot) commanded anyone to stone another
person for adultery. And I believe it was always a sin to do so.

Originally posted by josephw
Of course you have to pick and chose what portions of the Bible are valid in order to say that stoning someone to death was added by man, which, when you do, makes you the authority, and not God.

I am deciding, just like you, whether to make none, some or all the Bible the moral authority.
That is, simply because you say 'all' and I say 'some' still gives final authority to us. You
simply opine that the author of a collection of disparate texts is God. I opine that, at the very
least, the passage that commands the stoning of woman is inconsistent with that which I
believe God is.

You say you don't work from the standpoint of the "God done said it" attitude. I find that puzzling since knowing the "Truth" is based on what God has said. Otherwise, again, that makes man the authority concerning all things spiritual. That is a dangerous position to work from.

I believe that God communicates in many and various ways, that what one might call the
Holy Spirit is within all of us and, in our quiet and still moments, inspires us to the higher,
Divine calling. Thus, I don't think of Scripture as a closed canon, like you do, but that the
Truth is all around and within us. And I think that stoning women for any reason is inconsistent
with that Holy Spirit.

You didn't answer this question:

Originally posted by Nemesio
So? Yes or no question here: Are you saying the same action X committed each by a
Jew and Gentile can be judged differently (by God)?

Sin is disobedience. Is it not?
We live in an entirely different world that 2000 years ago. At least we do. In some places people still stone folks to death. Barbaric isn't it?

So, Jesus was encouraging disobedience with the established Law of His people.

Glad we cleared that up.

I'm of the opinion that it was barbaric back then, too. But you think it was God's command
and thus a moral good.

We are not under the law, but under grace. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. I would be put to death for the things I've done if we were under the Levitical law. Maybe you too?

Sure. And if we were put to death, then a moral wrong would have been committed against
us.

I'm thinking that what Jesus had written in the dirt was enough to change their minds. Probably the details of the plot they had engineered to "catch" Jesus off guard by framing the woman. Maybe the name of the one caught with the woman. Perhaps a Pharisee that was tired of her anyway. We don't know. It failed again.

You didn't answer my question, which was: Do you believe that those Jews, who at Jesus' comment
did not follow God's command, sinned? If you believe the complete contents of the Bible, it
would seem that you are wedded to this position.

You also didn't answer my other question, which was: Do you believe that (Jewish...) women
are unclean during their periods. Do you subscribe to that? (Yes or no, and why suffices)

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by josephw
The whole discussion, originally, wasn't about whether stoning someone to death is morally right or wrong. The question was whether or not I believed what the Bible teaches concerning women. I said yes.

I know what you said to that. I'm confused by your answer. The questions I posed above
pertain specifically to ...[text shortened]... Do you subscribe to that? (Yes or no, and why suffices)

Nemesio[/b]

You're wasting your time, Nem. He's rude and barbaric; not worth the trouble it takes to type the message. Knock the dust off your sandals and visit him no more.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by josephw
The whole discussion, originally, wasn't about whether stoning someone to death is morally right or wrong. The question was whether or not I believed what the Bible teaches concerning women. I said yes.

I know what you said to that. I'm confused by your answer. The questions I posed above
pertain specifically to ...[text shortened]... Do you subscribe to that? (Yes or no, and why suffices)

Nemesio[/b]

I am deciding, just like you, whether to make none, some or all the Bible the moral authority.

This is essentially the heart of the matter between us, and until we can come to an understanding about just what is "God's Word", and what is not, we will not agree.

You know that I believe that the 66 books contained in the Bible are "given by inspiration".

If you will, tell me what you consider "God's Word".

I'm not exactly happy with this post. I think there must be a better way of saying this.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
You're wasting your time, Nem. He's rude and barbaric; not worth the trouble it takes to type the message. Knock the dust off your sandals and visit him no more.

At least I don't talk negatively to others about you.(publicly)

If you have something to say about me, then have the where-with-all to say it to me directly.

I obviously struck a nerve with you somewhere.

Originally posted by josephw

If you have something to say about me, then have the where-with-all to say it to me directly.

Big words aren't your speciality. Next time, just say "the balls."

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Big words aren't your speciality. Next time, just say "the balls."

Maybe you're right. I should just be myself and not try to be so nice.

Originally posted by josephw
At least I don't talk negatively to others about you.(publicly)

If you have something to say about me, then have the where-with-all to say it to me directly.

I obviously struck a nerve with you somewhere.

U did address you directly. You ignored me, so I took it public. I did NOT argue an favor of adultery, therefore my argument cannot be "weak"---'cuz I didn't make no damn argument! Is that "direct" enough fer ye?

Originally posted by josephw
You know, the more you speak the more obvious it becomes to me that your knowledge of the scripture is not only lacking, but is in fact corrupted. (Don't take that personally.)

....

You're confusing knowledge with interpretation. Nemesio is demonstrating knowledge of the stoning passage. His interpretation is differing from yours, and then in effect you call him ignorant (unknowledgable), twisted (corrupted), and then say don't take it personally!

Riiiight. Ain't you the good Christian.

Originally posted by aanepade
Good point...

But, the trouble is I expect a politician to base their decisions on reasonableness and logic - not on their belief system. A scientist's love life is their own business - the background for a decision in a political context is most certainly not.

Do you think its possible to eliminate death due to human error? eg can humans eliminate mistakes made so that there are no airplane crashes?

The answer is NO.

Neither is it possible for people (politicians or otherwise) to completely remove the influence of their 'belief system' on their decisions.