17 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioCultural relativity: Judging cultures on their own terms: the principle that we should not judge the behavior of others using the standards of our own culture, and that each culture must be analyzed on its own terms
What do you mean by this term? How are you applying it to
Scott?
Nemesio
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressIs it consistent with your definition of 'Devout Christian' that the person
I frankly couldn’t care less whether or not these things are enough to meet your definition of a Christian.
in question would not ever go to Church or ever engage in organized
worship of a Christian God?
Nemesio
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressSo, for example, would saying the Bible knew about genetics be
[b]Cultural relativity: Judging cultures on their own terms: the principle that we should not judge the behavior of others using the standards of our own culture, and that each culture must be analyzed on its own terms
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.[/b]
an example of applying current cultural understanding to the writing
of a different culture?
Nemesio
17 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressYou talk about the 'moral advancement of society'. Pray tell, who are you to judge what 'society' is right and what is wrong? The romans would have thought you crazy, and you think that they are barbarians for keeping slaves. Who is right and who is wrong?
[b]Within that society yes. For example, the romans felt it was fine to have slaves (I'm not saying that being a slave would be nice - just that the romans were not doing anything 'morally' wrong because that was part of their accepted culture). The japanese never talk man-to-man, always through an intermediary.
Ok, so you’re a strong rela n) who saw that such practices contradicted the scripture and made the necessary changes.[/b]
The English / Scottish example is merely one of one nation trying to impose its will upon another, much in the way that you seem to be advocating. Feel free to try and sleep with my girlfriend - but a word to the wise, I've got more than one karate medal at national level!
wrt Blacks / whites. There ARE many places in the bible that tell you not to keep slaves I'm sure. I'm sure there are also many passages in the bible that tell you to smite unbelievers too. That's called assualt or murder / manslaughter depending upon how far you wish to take it.
"If a society is content with relativity nothing changes."
This is true, but how much of a say in your life do you want the state to have? Personally, I'd have a state that evens things out a bit, helps the poor a bit. I don't want them taking to social engineering though! I don't want religion or non-religion to be forced on anyone - everyone should have their own free choice.
By the way - you never DID tell me how ancient Orcadians got a copy of the bible 2000 years before you claimed it was written (and 2600 years before there is any physical evidence of it existing, even in part) to tell them to keep their toilets away from their living areas.
17 Jan 06
3 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]“After the death of his (Abraham Lincoln) 4-year-old son, Edward, in 1850, he regularly attended Presbyterian churches in Springfield and Washington, pastured by doctrinal conservatives. Yet he never became a member of any congregation.”
Is it consistent with your definition of 'Devout Christian' that the person in question would not ever go to Church or ever engage in organized worship of a Christian God?
Nemesio
http://www.christianitytoday.com/holidays/memorial/features/33h010.html
He did go to church. And even if he had not, I’m not convinced that church is a necessary requirement. According to Jesus our body is our temple, and the kingdom of God is within us. The important thing is our relationship with God, not necessarily church attendance.
Back when slavery was in effect, there were blacks who were Christians but not allowed to attend church. If they kept the faith and accepted Jesus into their hearts I believe that they were Christians.
“The truly remarkable thing about Lincoln's religion was how these circumstances drove him to deeper contemplation of God and the divine will. The external Lincoln, casual about religious observance, hid a man of profound morality, an almost unbearable God-consciousness, and a deep belief in the freedom of God to transcend the limited vision of humanity.”
http://www.christianitytoday.com/holidays/memorial/features/33h010.html
To me he qualifies. He simply considered his religion a private matter. You should be able to relate to that.
17 Jan 06
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou talk about the 'moral advancement of society'. Pray tell, who are you to judge what 'society' is right and what is wrong? The romans would have thought you crazy, and you think that they are barbarians for keeping slaves. Who is right and who is wrong?
You talk about the 'moral advancement of society'. Pray tell, who are you to judge what 'society' is right and what is wrong? The romans would have thought you crazy, and you think that they are barbarians for keeping slaves. Who is right and who is wrong?
The English / Scottish example is merely one of one nation trying to impose its will upo xisting, even in part) to tell them to keep their toilets away from their living areas.
On the contrary, the Romans would have thought you crazy for believing that all those “barbarians” have rights. Do you think that the Romans practiced cultural relativity? LOL 😵
The English / Scottish example is merely one of one nation trying to impose its will upon another, much in the way that you seem to be advocating.
In some cases the good nations of the world should impose their will on others. To say differently is to say that we should all be German speaking Nazis.
Feel free to try and sleep with my girlfriend - but a word to the wise, I've got more than one karate medal at national level!
Taking it a little personal? I was referring to how an historical event might have affected you.
I'm sure there are also many passages in the bible that tell you to smite unbelievers too.
Show them to me.
Originally posted by The Chess Express
"If a society is content with relativity nothing changes."
This is true, but how much of a say in your life do you want the state to have? Personally, I'd have a state that evens things out a bit, helps the poor a bit. I don't want them taking to social engineering though! I don't want religion or non-religion to be forced on anyone - everyone should have their own free choice.
Society needs to change Scott. That includes all levels of society, from the poor to the rich and powerful. Where would we be if it didn’t happen? Freedom and lots of rights sound good. Everybody likes to hear that. But too many rights can also be a bad thing. I feel more comfortable with the term “human rights.”
By the way - you never DID tell me how ancient Orcadians got a copy of the bible 2000 years before you claimed it was written (and 2600 years before there is any physical evidence of it existing, even in part) to tell them to keep their toilets away from their living areas.
I’ve done enough research for tonight. You raised the issue, you bring the references.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioHonestly Nemesio, I never really thought about it that way. It sounds kind of right, but I’m just not sure if it’s an example of cultural relativity.
So, for example, would saying the Bible knew about genetics be
an example of applying current cultural understanding to the writing
of a different culture?
Nemesio
Cultural relativity is more about accepting a culture based on their laws and customs. If it is customary for a society to roast and eat every second child, or perhaps commit genocide (as a number of societies do), then it should be ok with everybody else so long as it’s ok with the society.
17 Jan 06
No, your bible is not accurate.
The much noted "water into wine miracle" is not even mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Neither is the "fishes and loaves" story.
And I guess Jonah really lived in the belly of a whale.
And jesus cured diseases by casting out demons, Does that mean that doctors practice demon elimination?
Your bible is about as accurate as the book of mormon.
But don't let the truth intefere with your attempts to obfuscate.
In Love there is Life
Angela
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWell, that's one form of cultural relativity. That is, you are applying it with
Cultural relativity is more about accepting a culture based on their laws and customs. If it is customary for a society to roast and eat every second child, or perhaps commit genocide (as a number of societies do), then it should be ok with everybody else so long as it’s ok with the society.
respect two contemporary cultures.
But it can apply to two cultures 1000s of years apart. This is why I emphasize context
with you, Chess Express, is because you are being relativistic in your readings, imposing
bizarre 21st-century interpretations that would have made no sense to the authors and
barely make sense today.
Nemesio
17 Jan 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lukemcmullanwell-no, as it's not the actual liking of the other man/woman that is the sin, it's the actual act (or, as you rightly pointed out, the thinking of the act) of sex. if you lust* after a woman you are not married to then you are in the same position as a man lusting after another man.
That's a bit hyppocritical isn't it?
In this situation, you say that thinking about a "sin" is OK as long as you don't carry it out.
But didn't Jesus say that anyone who is angry at someone has already committed murder in his heart?
Or better, any man who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery in his heart?
also, my understanding of the catolic church is that a priest cannot be married, and therefore he is not practicing sexual activities with anyone, male or female. (he may have done, but that's in the past and is forgiven).
so, a gay christain can become a priest as long as they don't lust after other men and don't have unlawful sexual relations with anyone. Although i'd just like to make it clear here that i have never really given this subject much though so i really don't hold any opinions on the matter. i'm just saying what's coming into my head...
*bearing in mind that lust is not just liking other people...
scottishinnz, there have always been false prohets. read 1&2 chronicals and 1&2 kings if you want to see the way that God has worked the church (well, then the kingdoms of judah and israel).
and perhaps my saying the modern church is in an awful state was a bit harsh. you talk about the church fighting an bickering about how to worship him, and yet most of the churches in st andrews are entering into a time of prayer just now, prayer for unity between the churches here as well as other things.
st andrews is windy, and the student population is currently very weird due to this being exam time. one of my friends as learned to knit this week, whilst i have learned to juggle (i can do "the claw"!...)
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by genius"and yet most of the churches in st andrews are entering into a time of prayer just now, prayer for unity between the churches here as well as other things."
well-no, as it's not the actual liking of the other man/woman that is the sin, it's the actual act (or, as you rightly pointed out, the thinking of the act) of sex. if you lust* after a woman you are not married to then you are in the same position as a man lusting after another man.
also, my understanding of the catolic church is that a priest cannot be m ...[text shortened]... learned to knit this week, whilst i have learned to juggle (i can do "the claw"!...)
Does that include the Orthodoc church and a Jewish Temple..?? Wait, nope, St Andys so it'll be what Churches of Scotland (and England?)
Cheers Fella!
17 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzthere's a good dozen churchs in st andrews. no orthodox, but we have a roman catholic one, a baptist, a couple of episcopal, and an almost penticostal one, other than the CoS's...
"and yet most of the churches in st andrews are entering into a time of prayer just now, prayer for unity between the churches here as well as other things."
Does that include the Orthodoc church and a Jewish Temple..?? Wait, nope, St Andys so it'll be what Churches of Scotland (and England?)
Cheers Fella!
and there is no jewish temple. but the jewish temple is not a church...