Originally posted by josephw That depends on how you define "religion".
The religious man is a hypocrite, just as Jesus called the religious rulers who sat in "Moses' seat". They had religion, and it led the people away from God just as the passage declares.
My reply to vivify was designed to make the distinction between "religious hypocrisy" and true faith in God which isn't the cause of the violence we see in this world. Perhaps you should have read his post first.
You can be religious without being a hypocrite. A genuine, dedicated, sincere follower of the Christian faith, at some point in history, stoned a woman to death for not bleeding on her wedding night.
Originally posted by vivify You can be religious without being a hypocrite. A genuine, dedicated, sincere follower of the Christian faith, at some point in history, stoned a woman to death for not bleeding on her wedding night.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie How do you know that?
Correction: At some point in time, that sincere, genuine follower of the faith would've agreed to stone a woman to death for not bleeding on her period, since it was a commandment in the bible.
Whether this actually happened or not, I don't know; but if someone was sincere in believing in the biblical god, then that sincere person would've sincerely stoned such a woman to death if the opportunity came up, out pure devotion and belief.
Originally posted by vivify Correction: At some point in time, that sincere, genuine follower of the faith would've agreed to stone a woman to death for not bleeding on her period, since it was a commandment in the bible.
Whether this actually happened or not, I don't know; but if someone was sincere in believing in the biblical god, then that sincere person would've sincerely stoned such a woman to death if the opportunity came up, out pure devotion and belief.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.
Read the chapter in the link starting from where it says "Marriage violations" at verse 13, if you want the entire context.
Originally posted by vivify https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22
Deuteronomy 22:20-21:
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.
Read the chapter in the link starting from where it says "Marriage violations" at verse 13, if you want the entire context.
This is something different than from what you have stated above. At first you state that it was on her wedding night then it was changed to her menstruation. I quote, 'agreed to stone a woman to death for not bleeding on her period, since it was a commandment in the bible.' There is no law which states that if a women does not menstruate then she should be stoned to death. There is a law to determine virginity by bleeding but failing to menstruate was not a capital crime.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie This is something different than from what you have stated above. At first you state that it was on her wedding night then it was changed to her menstruation. I quote, 'agreed to stone a woman to death for not bleeding on her period, since it was a commandment in the bible.' There is no law which states that if a women does not menstruate then she s ...[text shortened]... e is a law to determine virginity by bleeding but failing to menstruate was not a capital crime.
That post is an obvious mistake. I meant wedding night. You should already know this, since at the top of this very page, I said "not bleeding on her wedding night". You even quoted me saying those exact words. Scroll up and see for yourself.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Actually I identify more with the 'knight of faith' because witnesses are because of their faith independent from nationalism, ethnic strife etc. Infact its this complete independence from these things which was the basis for much of their persecution. These things of course are not new, the Anabaptists suffered the same kind of thing during their ...[text shortened]... faith in God and oneself. To put ones faith in humanity I think is utter folly if I am honest.
Do you think it is possible to go too far in the opposite direction - isolating oneself to a point where, in the rare instances when one is forced to interact with outsiders, that one lacks a minimal empathy and/or understanding to deal with them civilly?
I tend to agree, the Krishnamurti quote is an argument against having any identity at all. Asserting one's own identity does not imply one has to deny anyone else's.
Originally posted by DeepThought I tend to agree, the Krishnamurti quote is an argument against having any identity at all. Asserting one's own identity does not imply one has to deny anyone else's.
But the triad of "by belief, by nationality, by tradition," is associated with extreme measures to defend/assert same. The quote is an overstatement.
First of all, in the interests of clarity, i did not author the quotation. Secondly I agree with you. I don't see how separating oneself can lead to violence and i have argued for a contrary stance. It appears to me that the authors sentiments are encouraging a kind of oneness of humanity in an attempt to negate the sometimes devastating effects of religious, political, ethnic bias. The problem I have is that I have no faith in humanity and have reasoned that only by acting as an individual can one hope to overcome these powerful forces.
I would also like to point out that at our Kingdom hall we originally according to the architects design, had uni toilets. The Christian sisters insisted on having their own and thus male and female toilets were arranged. Having cleaned both I can say with honesty that the sisters take latrines to new levels of sophistication and comfort with flowers, potpourri and little knitted dolls abounding, the male one appearing rather functional by comparison.
Originally posted by vivify That post is an obvious mistake. I meant wedding night. You should already know this, since at the top of this very page, I said "not bleeding on her wedding night". You even quoted me saying those exact words. Scroll up and see for yourself.
So I don't get how you're confused.
yes its a mistake but i was not sure which one you were trying to imply.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblem Do you think it is possible to go too far in the opposite direction - isolating oneself to a point where, in the rare instances when one is forced to interact with outsiders, that one lacks a minimal empathy and/or understanding to deal with them civilly?
I do not advocate an actual physical isolation, simply a moral, ethical, spiritual one. Is it possible to go too far? yes entirely and history is peppered with individual who have strayed so far that they take on monstrous proportions, lacking both empathy and understanding. Calvin immediately springs to mind.
'the knight of faith'
13 Jan '15 19:33
Back to Top