Originally posted by robbie carrobieSelf effacing and modest? I call that being a wimp. Dress as you want, and if others object, tell them to man up and grow a pair of balls.
yes its what a self effacing modest person does, rather than simply seek ones own prerogative they consider the consciences of others and in this instance, dress appropriately.
What if your middle of the road modest dress sense inappropriate and it offends me?
17 Jun 14
Originally posted by googlefudge
I would point out the hypocrisy in singling out women.
Men have breasts too... They are typically [although not always]
smaller than women's are, but we all have them.
If men can be topless then I can't think of any compelling [and importantly
non-sexist] reason why women can't be topless also.
But then I don't get my beliefs from bronze age tribesmen.
But then I don't get my beliefs from bronze age tribesmen.The Bible was written in the iron age (500 B.C.), all the imagery is iron age. Science was pretty much invented by the Ancient Greek Philosophers, in the iron age. So on that basis we are pretty much on equal terms with the Creationists.
Just a point, historians stop using the technology system with the start of written history. But when it gets down to it, we are still in the iron age.
Originally posted by DeepThought1. Aren't the OT stories meant to be dated back to 1300BCE?
1.The Bible was written in the iron age (500 B.C.),
2. Science was pretty much invented by the Ancient Greek Philosophers, in the iron age.
3. But when it gets down to it, we are still in the iron age.
2. I feel a slight exaggeration. Many would argue for 1600s
3. NO. Stone Age (Copper Age) Bronze Age, Iron Age are
convenient names for periods of pre-history. Times when
the written word was non-existent or rare. Surely no
later than 1000 CE ?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWow. Um no.But then I don't get my beliefs from bronze age tribesmen.The Bible was written in the iron age (500 B.C.), all the imagery is iron age. Science was pretty much invented by the Ancient Greek Philosophers, in the iron age. So on that basis we are pretty much on equal terms with the Creationists.
Just a point, historians stop using the ...[text shortened]... m with the start of written history. But when it gets down to it, we are still in the iron age.
Firstly I was being pithy rather than precise.
However if you're going to be precise then that was a load of bunk.
Science was not invented by the Greeks, although they heavily influenced it's
creation and laid some of the ground work.
Also as science is constantly updating, even if they did invent it then I am not
basing my beliefs on their work, but upon modern day science.
And the fact that we still use iron doesn't mean this is still the iron age.
Just as the fact that we [and they] still use/d bronze didn't make it still the bronze age.
We are in the "Modern Era", which started in 1950, when atmospheric Nuclear testing
destroyed the isotope balance needed for radiometric dating after that point.
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by Proper KnobSigh, humility is often seen as a weakness in this egotistical climate of meism that you detailed and yet for the Christian as well as others, its a quality of strength. The willingness to yield to personal preference in modesty and soundness of mind takes thought and self control.
Self effacing and modest? I call that being a wimp. Dress as you want, and if others object, tell them to man up and grow a pair of balls.
What if your middle of the road modest dress sense inappropriate and it offends me?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemwow i forgot about your mind ray hidden far in the hills. Do you also do tarrot readings and crystal ball sittings?
That was the point of the islander example; you can be topless and modest at the same time, because everyone else is.
What analogy? I didn't make one. I should think you have to learn to properly recognize an analogy before you can rate it.
I think you secretly hope people cry and whine in response to your posts because that's all you really wan ...[text shortened]... the Islander example satisfies all 3 of your 'elements', if those islanders also believe in God.
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasthis is a FAILURE to understand the difference between a law and a principle.
What was wrong during the biblical times doesn't need to be wrong now.
What was right during the biblical times doesn't have to be right now.
To believe that the rules from ancient times should be fixed until the sun goes nova is plain stupid.
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasOn the contrary here is your statement here
I haven't said anything about laws, neither principles. None of them are eternal.
To believe that the rules from ancient times should be fixed
This represents a failure to distinguish between rules and principles.
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou shouldn't quote me wrong.
On the contrary here is your statement here
To believe that the rules from ancient times should be fixed
This represents a failure to distinguish between rules and principles.
I wrote
"To believe that the rules from ancient times should be fixed until the sun goes nova is plain stupid."
And I stand with that.
Is this about rules (didn't you say laws before) and principles, then it's your interpretation. I didn't say anything about that.
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasIts nothing to do with an interpretation, you are forgetting that the Bible is not solely concerned with rules, but principles as well and if you acknowledge that fact then you will discern why the statement you made fails on this account.
You shouldn't quote me wrong.
I wrote
"To believe that the rules from ancient times should be fixed until the sun goes nova is plain stupid."
And I stand with that.
Is this about rules (didn't you say laws before) and principles, then it's your interpretation. I didn't say anything about that.
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell, if you don't like what I wrote, then what?
Its nothing to do with an interpretation, you are forgetting that the Bible is not solely concerned with rules, but principles as well and if you acknowledge that fact then you will discern why the statement you made fails on this account.
Would you like me to lie? To write things that you approve of? Or what?
I hereby repeat the posting that you reject:
What was wrong during the biblical times doesn't need to be wrong now.
What was right during the biblical times doesn't have to be right now.
To believe that the rules from ancient times should be fixed until the sun goes nova is plain stupid.
18 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd I still reject it on the basis that it fails to acknowledge the difference bewteen rules and principles.
Well, if you don't like what I wrote, then what?
Would you like me to lie? To write things that you approve of? Or what?
I hereby repeat the posting that you reject:What was wrong during the biblical times doesn't need to be wrong now.
What was right during the biblical times doesn't have to be right now.
To believe that the rules from ancient times should be fixed until the sun goes nova is plain stupid.
