Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, yeah, I've heard the ole "But it's a translation error! It really means camel, and it's talking about a gate!" I don't really buy it, tbh.

Laughing Man wrote:Yeah, yeah, I've heard the ole "But it's a translation error! It really means camel, and it's talking about a gate!" I don't really buy it, tbh.

That is very far from what I am referring to.

Ok Monster Rain I will giove it a go.



According to the Bible wealth is not evil, however greed is.

'The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil', note how a true translation differs a lot from the common mistransaltion: 'money is the root of all evil'.

For further evidence you need look no further than the blessing of Solomon. Solomon was offered a blessing by God, and he chose wisdom. God commended Solomon for not choosing wealth or health instead and promised that as a result he would also receive those blessings too.

As for the camel and eye of the needle, it may well mean the narrowest gate of Jerusalem which was known colloquially by that name. We should also look at the definition 'rich man', a better translation may well be tycoon. remember that at those times of brigandy, uneven taxation and extortion uncorrupted accumulation of extreme wealth was unlikely unless one was born with it.

Orlanth wrote:
The only way I failed to infer correctly from your prior post is if you yourself didnt know what you were posting.

No one can infer 'correctly', that is the nature of inference.

Orlanth wrote:
Come to think of it that may not too unlikely.

Inference is not implication. Try again.

Orlanth wrote:
However I can only go by what was written, and when you write gak like 'We can also mock them for their stupidity', in the context you wrote it, then you can be expected to be called out over it.

Called out for what? A statement regarding the fact that a person can be mocked for perceived stupidity?

I never stated that religious people are stupid, nor did I state that a judgment regarding stupidity is objective.

Again, stop drawing inferences, you are very, very bad at it.

Orlanth wrote:a true translation

A true Scotsman knows a true translation.

Well, obviously that's an incorrect interpretation. Those hobos in the gutter are true christians, not you.

And I think I'll leave it at that.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:a true translation

A true Scotsman knows a true translation.

Out of context, and yet still very funny.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:a true translation

A true Scotsman knows a true translation.

I think what he meant to say was a more "accurate" translation. Even though I love the King James Version, it does have a few issues when compared to modern translations such as NIV or NASB, which were based on older manuscript traditions.

And root of "all kinds of evil"(NIV) is a more accurate translation than "all evil"(KJV). Same type of thing as "Thou shalt not murder"(NIV) vs "Thou shalt not kill"(KJV).

GG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Laughing Man wrote:Well, obviously that's an incorrect interpretation. Those hobos in the gutter are true christians, not you.

And I think I'll leave it at that.

Actually if you look at the first Church described in Acts chapter 2, they pooled all of their possessions and gave them to each other to use as needed. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that to be a"true Christian" you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor.

You may be thinking of the example of the rich young ruler as recalled in Luke 18:18-23 where The ruler asked Jesus what must he do to be saved. Jesus told him he lacked one thing, and that was to sell everything he has and give it to the poor. That was a specific instruction that Jesus gave to that one man because he knew that the rich young ruler loved his money above all else, but it is also a warning to anyone that loves their money more than God. It doesn't mean that everyone should sell all of their possessions and give to the poor. That could result in a form of asceticism such as what monks do.

Now having said all that, if a Christian felt led by the Holy Spirit to do such a thing than maybe they should.

GG

generalgrog wrote:I think what he meant to say was a more "accurate" translation. Even though I love the King James Version, it does have a few issues when compared to modern translations such as NIV or NASB, which were based on older manuscript traditions.

And root of "all kinds of evil"(NIV) is a more accurate translation than "all evil"(KJV). Same type of thing as "Thou shalt not murder"(NIV) vs "Thou shalt not kill"(KJV).

GG

If I gave a crap about christianity anymore, ESV all the way. NIV is a piece of trash and is less accurate than the KJV. I'm still Zondervan certified for whatever that's worth Regardless, any reading of scripture will always be RaI.

generalgrog wrote:
Actually if you look at the first Church described in Acts chapter 2, they pooled all of their possessions and gave them to each other to use as needed. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that to be a"true Christian" you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor.

Righto. Obviously all good Christians are communists. You heard it here first, folks! Stop doing it wrong!

Laughing Man wrote:

generalgrog wrote:
Actually if you look at the first Church described in Acts chapter 2, they pooled all of their possessions and gave them to each other to use as needed. It doesn't say anywhere in the Bible that to be a"true Christian" you have to sell everything you have and give it to the poor.

Righto. Obviously all good Christians are communists. You heard it here first, folks! Stop doing it wrong!

This is why I didn't bother. GG gives a reasoned answer, you make a one-liner strawman out of it.

I admire the patience of some posters.

I'd like to say that I don't know what difference it makes labeling the first church communist. If a group of people decides to live that way, and doesn't force others to do so, I don't see a problem with it.

Also, and this is a much larger point, that everyone does it wrong. That's why such an emphasis is placed on the fact that we are saved by Grace and not by our own works, otherwise everyone would be boned.

And I see the overwhelming sarcasm has failed to penetrate your defenses. Thus, I suppose I'll just have to bludgeon you over the head with it: I'm making a point. No True Scotsman fallacy, leaking from every pore.

And really, your last sentence there just kinda proves the point. :/

Laughing Man wrote:And I see the overwhelming sarcasm has failed to penetrate your defenses. Thus, I suppose I'll just have to bludgeon you over the head with it: I'm making a point. No True Scotsman fallacy, leaking from every pore.

Either you don't know what a No True Scotsman fallacy is, or your thought process is fundamentally flawed. It is also clear to me that generally, when someone has nothing of substance to say, they start bringing up fallacies and arguing about how we are arguing about what we are arguing about. Unless it's Ahtman, in which case it's done in a brilliantly amusing manner.

It's only out of sheer morbid curiosity that I ask:

Laughing Man wrote:And really, your last sentence there just kinda proves the point. :/

How so?

I'm still Zondervan certified for whatever that's worth

Would this be the same Zondervan that developed and publishes the NIV o.O

Let me rephrase: I was intentionally trying to provoke No True Scotsman fallacies (albeit in reverse) myself, as a rhetorical device. It's late and I've been banging my head against bosses all evening, so it may have come out somewhat... garbled. >.<

As for the latter, only a fraction of Christians believe in the "God's grace alone" idea. Catholics, for instance, would likely disagree with you. But of course, they're not doing it properly.

Now, can we get back to discussing why everyone who hates Nazis is morally equivalent to Nazis themselves? That was much more interesting.

No, because that's foolishness.

I'd like to know what I said that no Christians do, that you provided an example of Christians doing that very thing, to which I implied that no real Christian would do such a thing. I would seriously love to hear it. See, I explained what a "No true Scotsman" fallacy actually is, to help you out a bit.

dogma wrote:
Called out for what? A statement regarding the fact that a person can be mocked for perceived stupidity?
I never stated that religious people are stupid, nor did I state that a judgment regarding stupidity is objective.

What is the point in discussing something when the person you are arguing with denies what they wrote in plain text.
I will not bother quoting your commentary in context as it would involve more than a few lines of text and you would just deny it anyway, then try to get picky.

No point talking to you, but for the record:
Some who know me face to face put great store in my analytical talents, so I must be far better at inferences than you think. The how, who, why and where of this is my concern, feel free not to believe me, it wont matter, their opinions weigh more than yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Laughing Man wrote:Well, obviously that's an incorrect interpretation. Those hobos in the gutter are true christians, not you.

And I think I'll leave it at that.

Christianity is defined by salvation not by charity or assets.
Salvation comes through faith in Christ alone, it cannot be attained by any other means.

Morning folks!

Man... my head hurts too much to get involved in a rational thought provoking debate so i shall take a pass on whatever i was supposed to be talking about when i was half cut last night...

Seriously though, can we just get back to talking about the topic?

I want to know if a sensible Christian actually belives that flogging the log actually counts as a terrible sin?

Isnt that just... needlessly harsh?

And if we all sin anyway, what does it matter if you bash your bishop? I thought the whole point was that no human can be without sin, so we need to "wash it away" with belief in Jesus?

Is choking your chicken really that big a deal to people all things considered?

And can anyone else fit more metaphors for spanking the monkey into one post?

Connor McKane wrote:Isn't belief in something better than belief in nothing?

Those who profess tolerance are the first to be intolerant when disagreed with.

I don't want to pick on anyone, but it seems like so many people now-adays regurgitate that ole' party line, that belief in God or Allah or whoever, makes you ignorant and bassackwards.

Its just sad.

I believe in people. I think that despite our bad points as a species, and boy are there a lot of them, humans are overall a good race. I believe in that.
Belief does not necessarily equate to religion, though I have no problems with people who do believe. After all, who am I to tell them they're wrong?

Orlanth wrote:
What is the point in discussing something when the person you are arguing with denies what they wrote in plain text.

Where did I make reference to sexual behavior via plain text?

Orlanth wrote:
I will not bother quoting your commentary in context as it would involve more than a few lines of text and you would just deny it anyway, then try to get picky.

No, I would note what the words I used meant, and the manner in which your approximation was wrong.

That is usually tough for fools.

Orlanth wrote:
Some who know me face to face put great store in my analytical talents

Islands are fun, no?

Orlanth wrote:
, so I must be far better at inferences than you think.

No, that only means that some people in England disagree with me.

Orlanth wrote:
their opinions weigh more than yours.

They do? Why is that?

mattyrm wrote:
Seriously though, can we just get back to talking about the topic?
I want to know if a sensible Christian actually belives that flogging the log actually counts as a terrible sin?
Isnt that just... needlessly harsh?
And if we all sin anyway, what does it matter if you bash your bishop? I thought the whole point was that no human can be without sin, so we need to "wash it away" with belief in Jesus?

Read up Matty. Between the trolling there was a lot of on topic content from a number of people, answers to your questions were included.

Yeah im struggling with walls of text this morning due to 12 hours on the ale...

They should make a "nemesis" button to go next to the friends button, then you an Dogma can be unified on something for a change.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah im struggling with walls of text this morning due to 12 hours on the ale...

Isnt that what Saturdays are for?

Yes indeed. And Sundays are for sitting around feeling sorry for yourself.

mattyrm wrote:Yes indeed. And Sundays are for sitting around feeling sorry for yourself.

Ahh, Guiltia In Excess!

So you go to a Catholic chuch.


Meanwhile I wonder if this is true:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5118283/Bacon-sandwich-really-does-cure-a-hangover.html

Orlanth wrote:

mattyrm wrote:
Seriously though, can we just get back to talking about the topic?
I want to know if a sensible Christian actually belives that flogging the log actually counts as a terrible sin?
Isnt that just... needlessly harsh?
And if we all sin anyway, what does it matter if you bash your bishop? I thought the whole point was that no human can be without sin, so we need to "wash it away" with belief in Jesus?

Read up Matty. Between the trolling there was a lot of on topic content from a number of people, answers to your questions were included.

Now just because you have been myopic and insular doesn't mean you should think of yourself as a troll. Have a little more self confidence.

After all this time you would think you would have gotten past the whole 'someone disagrees = troll' thing but I see that is not so.

Bonkers video. If someone is so hung up on the need for sexual activity to only be within marriage as god intended I suppose they give pretty short shrift to gay people and that means I have very little interest in hearing their 'moral' arguments.

Anyway, masturbation is good for you.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stm
It prevents cancer, you hear that? Cancer, and unlike most 'healthy' activities, it's free and fun!

It's real healthy when you become a sex or porn addict from it. Sex and porn addiction are real good for healthy marriages .


GG

generalgrog wrote:It's real healthy when you become a sex or porn addict from it. Sex and porn addiction are real good for healthy marriages .


GG

No they don't. But please provide the source for the claim that masturbation = sex and porn addict? Treesong sourced himself. You aren't free from that. I personally think you're completely wrong, on this count, and I fail to see what's immoral about masturbation OR porn watching. Am I forcing anyone to do anything against their will? No. Am I hurting anyone by doing so? No.

In all honesty, in the Bible God did some things that we would label genocide and ethnic cleansing today. I'm going to turn this around and say even IF the Bible says masturbation is immoral, it also seems to advocate genocide and mass slaughter. Should we really follow the Bible's moral code on everything?

generalgrog wrote:It's real healthy when you become a sex or porn addict from it. Sex and porn addiction are real good for healthy marriages

Isn't that a bit of an overreaction? Everyone masturbates and most do not become addicted to sex and porn, that's more likely a sign of other issues than a causal effect of masturbation. Few things are good for you in excess, that doesn't mean it's healthy to not do them at all. If you're masturbating constantly and watching porn all the time to the neglect of relationships then it's a problem with the person, not the idea of masturbation.

In the section covering health benefits of masturbation on wikipedia it says...

There is no scientific evidence of a causative relationship between masturbation and any form of mental disorder. Excessive or compulsive sexual behavior is generally understood to be a symptom rather than a cause.

Backed with the following citations...
Levine, M. P., & Troiden, R. R. (1988). The myth of sexual compulsivity. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 347–363
Giles, J. (2006). No such thing as excessive levels of sexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 641–642.

Furthermore, with more appropriate citations, it goes on to say...

Compulsive masturbation and other compulsive behaviors can be signs of an emotional problem. As such, that may need to be addressed by a mental health specialist. As with any "nervous habit", it is more helpful to consider the causes of compulsive behavior, rather than try to repress masturbation.

There is discussion between professionals and other interested parties as to the existence of, and validity of the concept of, sexual addiction. Compulsive masturbation is regarded as one of the symptoms of sexual addiction by proponents of that concept.

It's a symptom of a problem, not the cause.