Can an American please answer a question?

[MobBoss]

LG in those type of situations, I try to use a concordance and go to the root word being used. For example, the 'Thou shalt not kill' should really be translated as 'Thou shalt not murder', a much narrower word, but one that simply makes more sense given the fact that the hebrews also had the death penalty in their laws. Often some translations are more broad than they need to be and such nuance does sometimes make a big difference.

 

[Lord Gay]

I agree that nuance is important, but I was wondering more about the difference you see between Christians and atheists. You said that atheists follow man's morality while Christians have God's unchanging morality. So I'm interested in what you meant about the morality of atheists changing for each situation.

For me, it seems logical to consider each situation on a case by case basis instead of a one-size-fits-all set of rules. I have always felt that the spirit of the law is what's important, not the letter of the law. Your words seemed to be suggesting the latter, which is why i'm curious if that's what you're actually saying. While I can see how solid rules have their appeal, inflexible rules strike me as dictatorial and potentially draconian.

 

[MobBoss]

LG the water is muddied because even a lot of Christians still follow man's morality despite claiming to be Christians.

And while the spirit (i.e. intent) of the law is important, it can lead to problems when people misinterpret that intent. The letter of the law is (or should be) the same to all, provided its writtin without ambiguity. I spend a LOT of time reading regulation and giving opinion on same, and in all cases we are always bound by what is actually written, and intent only comes in if the written part isnt exactly done very well.

 

[JollyRoger]

So intent would come in for most of the Bible then?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The intent of most of the New Testament seems quite obvious to me. What I don't understand is why so many supposed Christians are consistently not "Christian-like" in the least. Take forgiving others, for instance. Is that one of those cases where the word "forgive" doesn't really mean "forgive" at all?

That's why I'd pick the morals of an agnostic or an atheist over so many Christians every single time. At least they are far more consistent with their morals and don't expect to be "forgiven" for their sins, including hardly ever forgiving others except perhaps for other Christians who share their own views.

 

[Lord Gay]

And while the spirit (i.e. intent) of the law is important, it can lead to problems when people misinterpret that intent. The letter of the law is (or should be) the same to all, provided its writtin without ambiguity. I spend a LOT of time reading regulation and giving opinion on same, and in all cases we are always bound by what is actually written, and intent only comes in if the written part isnt exactly done very well.

The problem rises in that the letter can be misinterpreted as well. This is why I think the intent is superior, because it conveys a sentiment of purpose, regardless of what the text may say.

I have a passing interest in languages and when translating, you cannot do a literal translation. What you translate is the intent of a message because words can have multiple meanings and sentence and grammar structure vary between languages. I won't even go into slang and how some things just don't translate. Further, even in the same language, meanings alter and change over time. I don't have to point out to you the disagreements that have occurred over interpretations of Bible passages.

Fun as it is to talk about languages and interpretation though, you haven't answered my question. If you don't want to that's fine, twas just an idle question.

EDIT

@ Formal

You just reminded me of a vid I saw many years ago. I suppose it was meant to show how wonderful the Christian setup is, but I had a strong opposite reaction. It wasn't anything I hadn't heard before, but actually seeing it in action drove the point home for me. I thought, "THIS is what they consider a wonderful moral system??"


Link to video.

 

[timtofly]

I wouldn't know about the US situation, since I'm Canadian. And the non-Jews in the article I read were actually Christian women and their daughters.

Are not the Palestinians a mixture of Islam and Christianity and other non-religious groups? Christians seemingly just exist there. Muslims seemingly just exist there. The Islamic community has been the most vocal in asking for a state. I don't think that the Christian minority are as demanding. I am not quite sure who Israel allows citizenship to.