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.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:You must be looking at a different definition. The one we have in Social Justice and Ethics argues that mercy is showing compassion, leniency or kindness to someone who has absolutely no right or grounds to be given such.

That is a very weird, skewed, and disturbing definition and I wonder about the sanity of those who wrote it.

No, I'm using a general dictionary's definition.

It is being used in reference to judicial decisions so maybe there's that factor.

That would explain why it is so bizarre...

An example I give is of a nobleman having a peasant mother come to him begging him to show her family mercy and allow them to keep a bit more of their food instead of having it all taxed away. He decides to show her mercy and sends her off.

Is she undeserving? No, her pleas have merit, after all, family members could die if they don't have enough to eat. She simply is powerless to really force him to give her anything, so she asks for his mercy-- his compassion-- instead.

Manchu wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.

To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?

I think a Christ-centered life would make you more Christ-like. I do not think that the Pastors statements were Christ-like though.

A lot of it is because of the corruption of the bible as it gets translated, mistranslated, retranslated from the mistranslation, and then translated from the mistranslation that was retranslated from the mistranslation that was mistranslated from the original translation which was translated from a language whose contexts are long since lost, leaving words whose meanings ahve been changed over time, lost over time, or just have never been used since.

To say nothing of the political corruptions-- such as adding references to witchcraft in the KJV because the governing body which commissioned the KJV really hated witches at the time of its translation.

It's not that bizarre a definition. In fact, it's Christian: God's disposition to humanity is merciful in that it is totally gratuitous; it has not been merited in any sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Is she undeserving? No, her pleas have merit, after all, family members could die if they don't have enough to eat. She simply is powerless to really force him to give her anything, so she asks for his mercy-- his compassion-- instead.

I think the concept you are talking about is more like the Roman virture "clementia" or maybe what we call equity ("fairness").

Didnt at the turn of the century(1899-1900)
People only started to marry for love? Didnt they used to marry for connivance and love was considered childish.
And then when the industrial revolution happend, back breaking labor on the farm was replaced with factory work, allowing the living in cities and therefore marrying for love. And the oldies thought that would destroy marriage?

Manchu wrote:It's not that bizarre a definition. In fact, it's Christian: God's disposition to humanity is merciful in that it is totally gratuitous; it has not been merited in any sense.

Maybe, but I think it odd to say that mercy can only be shown to those who don't deserve it...

Manchu wrote:I think the concept you are talking about is more like the Roman virture "clementia" or maybe what we call equity.

No, I'm using the concept of "showing mercy".

d-usa wrote:

Manchu wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.

To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?

I think a Christ-centered life would make you more Christ-like. I do not think that the Pastors statements were Christ-like though.

How is the pastor's statements not christ like? He obviously has a relationship with god, living a christ centered and inspired life, so he's trying to build a perfect society. Just like you pointed out on the previous page.

Maybe you should work on your relationship with others first, then your relationship with god would work itself out.

Manchu wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.

To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?

The kingdom of god is within man, not one man nor a group of men but in all men - Charlie Chaplin in The Great Dictator. Paraphrasing Luke 17:21, I believe.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:I think the concept you are talking about is more like the Roman virture "clementia" or maybe what we call equity.

No, I'm using the concept of "showing mercy".

Again, I think you are mislabeling the action. If the tax would destroy the woman's family then the state will lose all future revenue from her and she will become an expense instead. As a matter of common sense and fairness, her tax burden is decreased. Because the woman is relieved by this outcome, she could see the tax man as "good" in that his decision benefited her and she might call him "merciful." To the extent that he really is "merciful" it is because the woman's plea is legally without merit: that is, if she does not qualify under the law for any decrease in taxes and the tax assessor has acted beyond his authority.

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Manchu wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.

To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?

I think a Christ-centered life would make you more Christ-like. I do not think that the Pastors statements were Christ-like though.

How is the pastor's statements not christ like? He obviously has a relationship with god, living a christ centered and inspired life, so he's trying to build a perfect society. Just like you pointed out on the previous page.

Maybe you should work on your relationship with others first, then your relationship with god would work itself out.

The pastor is preaching hate, something Christ never did.

sirlynchmob wrote:

d-usa wrote:

Manchu wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.

To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?

I think a Christ-centered life would make you more Christ-like. I do not think that the Pastors statements were Christ-like though.

How is the pastor's statements not christ like?

I do not find a statement by Christ where he advocates that the ruling government kill LGBT people, or where he advocates the killing of any group of people for that matter.

sirlynchmob wrote:He obviously has a relationship with god, living a christ centered and inspired life, so he's trying to build a perfect society. Just like you pointed out on the previous page.

Maybe you should work on your relationship with others first, then your relationship with god would work itself out.

I don't think that his actions are Christ-centered or Christ-inspired. His actions are a lot closer to the Old Testament model that Christ came to replace IMO.

sirlynchmob wrote:Maybe [one] should work on your relationship with others first, then your relationship with god would work itself out.

It seems to me that they need to be simultaneous. If you can't treat other human beings with dignity then you cannot treat God, who became man, with dignity, either. At the same time, why bother to treat human beings with dignity if God is some completely alien thing whose very existence makes humanity pathetic and worthless?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Maybe, but I think it odd to say that mercy can only be shown to those who don't deserve it...

Yes, that conception is wrong. "Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy."

Manchu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Maybe [one] should work on your relationship with others first, then your relationship with god would work itself out.

It seems to me that they need to be simultaneous. If you can't treat other human beings with dignity then you cannot treat God, who became man, with dignity, either. At the same time, why bother to treat human beings with dignity if God is some completely alien thing whose very existence makes humanity pathetic and worthless?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Maybe, but I think it odd to say that mercy can only be shown to those who don't deserve it...

Yes, that conception is wrong. "Blessed are the merciful for they shall be shown mercy."

That's the point though, life is not meaningless and worthless without god. Without a god, life if more meaningful, because you just have this short time on earth and that's it. Why waste what little time you have ignoring those around you while you just work on your relationship with god and some afterlife? God makes life meaningless, and completely worthless, because you are robbed of the only life you have preparing for your next life that you'll never get. Especially considering the odds, he's not real in any sense, and just an idea dreamed up by man.

But ideally, you WOULDN'T be ignoring those around you. Showing compassion to others is one of the things which is supposed to make the big guy happy. Or the big girl, or the big it, depending on your interpretation.

@sirlynchmob: I don't think that is an accurate description of a Christian life.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:But ideally, you WOULDN'T be ignoring those around you.

Yes, exactly so.

Although the "gender" of god is something that isn't really discussed enough. Always referred to in the masculine because of tradition I suppose, but in truth, if the god exists it likely doesn't have a gender as we understand it.

Melissia wrote:Although the "gender" of god is something that isn't really discussed enough. Always referred to in the masculine because of tradition I suppose, but in truth, if the god exists it likely doesn't have a gender as we understand it.

It's actually pretty explicit on the first page of the bible that God created man in his own image, and by man of course we mean humanity since in Gen 1:27 Man and woman are created simultaneously and in God's image. Thus as Mel says God doesn't have a gender until edited to have one.

Melissia wrote:But ideally, you WOULDN'T be ignoring those around you. Showing compassion to others is one of the things which is supposed to make the big guy happy. Or the big girl, or the big it, depending on your interpretation.

The Big Cheese.

Manchu wrote:@sirlynchmob: I don't think that is an accurate description of a Christian life.

Well there is no definitive example of christian life. If there was you'd think all christians could agree on it. So we look at the followers and see how their opinions are all over the spectrum, and they'll all claim to be right, based on the bible and the teachings of jesus.

sirlynchmob wrote:Well there is no definitive example of christian life.

And then we have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litany_of_the_Saints

Manchu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Well there is no definitive example of christian life.

And then we have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litany_of_the_Saints

And from his teachings we get pastor Knapp asking the government to kill the gays. And the other christians who show up to a rally defending that guy. Then the vast majority of christians voting to make their bigotry legal and constitutional.

You seem to be the odd man out Manchu.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Manchu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:Well there is no definitive example of christian life.

And then we have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litany_of_the_Saints

And from his teachings we get pastor Knapp asking the government to kill the gays. And the other christians who show up to a rally defending that guy. Then the vast majority of christians voting to make their bigotry legal and constitutional.

You seem to be the odd man out Manchu.

Those people aren't following JC's teachings, they're following the stuff which he came down to replace.

sirlynchmob wrote:And from his teachings we get pastor Knapp asking the government to kill the gays. And the other christians who show up to a rally defending that guy.

No one can draw a straight line between the Gospel and this pastor's hate speech. We have already established as much in the thread. I'd argue that the things he suggests, except inasmuch as they recognize the separate jurisdictions of civil and religious authorities, cannot be based at all on Christianity.

You seem to be the odd man out Manchu.

Not in my experience, thankfully. But I suppose I put little stock in the sheep's clothing some wolves wear.

Manchu wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:And from his teachings we get pastor Knapp asking the government to kill the gays. And the other christians who show up to a rally defending that guy.

No one can draw a straight line between the Gospel and this pastor's hate speech. We have already established as much in the thread. I'd argue that the things he suggests, except inasmuch as they recognize the separate jurisdictions of civil and religious authorities, cannot be based at all on Christianity.

You seem to be the odd man out Manchu.

Not in my experience, thankfully. But I suppose I put little stock in the sheep's clothing some wolves wear.

I wouldn't call them wolves. We wolves don't want these "people" either. I like the term scum, though that might be insulting to some algae.

sirlynchmob wrote:And from his teachings we get pastor Knapp asking the government to kill the gays.

Nope.

Actually, according to his teachings, those who do not marry because they have no natural inclination towards the opposite sex will get in to heaven if they love god and love their neighbor as themselves.

As noted previously in this thread, one of the meanings of the term "eunouchos" as used in the book of Matthew was "homosexual"; it indicated those who had no desire for women, and thus were safe to leave to guard the wives/concubines when the man of the house was away. As an aside, merely castrating them via cutting their balls off will not remove the desire for women, and men are still capable of having sex even castrated like this, even if they will not procreate. Thus they were still not trusted around the women because they would still have been tempted to rape them.

To further illustrate this, Matthew makes a distinction between three kinds of "eunouchos"-- those born, those made by man, and those who become for the sake of heaven.. Those who are "born eunouchos" would be homosexuals and asexuals (a term I find odd in this context because of my biology/chemistry background). Those who are "made eunouchos" would be those who are emotionally or physically scarred to be unable to have such desires. Those who "become eunouchos for heaven" are those who live a life of celibacy for religious reasons.

Unfortunately, modern translations of this particular part of the bible vary WILDLY, and are oftentimes incomprehensible and inaccurate to the original text, especially with the insistence of using "eunuch" in the modern sense instead of taking in to context the original term's usage. There is a similar problem with other terms, such as "abomination" or "sodomite". Hell, the Sin of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality until Emperor Justinian decided to try to influence the interpretation to become homosexuality so that he could attack his (Roman non-Christians with homosexual partners) political rivals. The Sin of Sodom was actually inhospitality-- yes, this was a vitally important issue at the time. Inhospitality was almost universally loathed by every single religion at the time and Judaism and Christianity were no exceptions.

I just want to find this tool, dress up as a Japanese schoolgirl, run up to him, bellow "STOP! Tranny time!" and punch him in the face.

The pastor, that is.

Manchu wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:[But in doing so he all but challenges the crowd to assert that they are not sinners.

They could have but they did not, such was the authority of this simple man writing in the sand.

If the law at the time was that adulterers would be stoned then I don't think they would be considered murderers.

And yet they would have been anyway, no matter what other men considered them.

A hangman, acting on the authority of the state (even a theocracy) is not a murderer.

If they were 'Christian' in the sense you argue they would be obliged to refrain from judging her for her adultery, and it would be the same for a murderer or child rapist.

They would have refrained as individuals and left the matter to civil authorities.

Judging a person and personally refusing to deal with them on the basis that they have committed horrific crimes is a bad thing?

The issue at hand is that they wanted to murder her for religious reasons, which is why the Pharisees ask Jesus about what we call the Old Testament. Jesus creates a distinction that they did not expect: the distinction between civil and religious authority.

Was adulterous behaviour punishable under Roman law?

Regardless, what if the state is dysfunctional to the point where there is a break down in social order? How does a Christian react towards criminals if there is no actual authorities for them to be brought to account before.

*snip*

Confronting, but you know that's not what I was arguing here. Sharia law, like any law based on a 2000 year old law system, is not fair and just in all or even most cases. But it would at least see justice done in cases of murderers and child molesters (one would hope), which is far more than can be said for Christianity.

Christianity is about forgiveness, redemption, charity, mercy, and etc, as opposed to "justice" (or, more accurately, retribution").

From Romans 12:

Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”* says the Lord. On the contrary:

“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

*[alternatively, from KJV: "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay"]

Melissia wrote:Christianity is about forgiveness, redemption, charity, mercy, and etc, as opposed to "justice" (or, more accurately, retribution").

From Romans 12:

Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”* says the Lord.

But if anyone can be forgiven for what they've done, completely irregardless of what they've done their whole life up until the moment of their death, is vengeance really exacted?

This is one of the reasons I don't like much of the Bible, the first half is full of what amounts to a racial superiority complex and the second half doesn't really value the idea of Justice.

Do you equate justice with retribution, or with redemption?