The Problem of Slavery in the Bible

[Houseman]

If they're a Biblical dictionary, they're defining what it's assumed those words mean in the Bible, not what the words mean

Prove it.

I mean he didn't with the new testament,

Prove it.

Prove that your premises apply only to the new testament

I don't recall ever claiming that they don't. I explicitly encouraged you to apply it to the Quran if you wanted.

I can apply pretty much everything you say in favour of the new testament to the quran, you realise that right?

Yeah, go right ahead. If you want to change the subject so badly, I'm not stopping you.

Already brought up Pope Urban's speech at the Council of Clermont. He quoted the Bible pretty extensively in that. You want some choice quotes or the whole thing?

Your choice.

First reference to a specific Christian Church organisation is from about 110 AD. New Testament as the entity you would in theory recognise came onto existence around 393 AD. So, yes, they literally wrote the book.

That's not proof. You're just saying that chronology equals causation. It's the same kind of thing that misleading headlines do when they say "Man buys ice cream and gets shot by the police" while leaving out the armed robbery that happened after he bought the ice cream.

Also, does not the fact that you're admitting that certain doctrines fit into things like the Council of Nicaea demonstrate the whole picking and choosing thing I've been saying was bad from the beginning

Does it? It's your argument.

In the same way that if I had a pet dog, let it loose on you and then didn't do anything to stop it you'd think I was a bit of a twat

"I'd think".
So it's just your opinion?

So being married and fornicating with the person you're married to is adultery? Odd definition your going by there House

This is the definition of "fornication" that I am using. These were the first three links on google (The first one is from the oxford dictionary, by google's own admission)
So no, my definition is not odd. It is the standard, generally accepted, definition. If anything, your definition is odd.

My proof to you would be "the actual historical events that happened".

Then cite those "actual historical events", preferably in the form of a link. You say that it's "documented history"? So where is it documented? Link me. Take a screenshot. Prove it.

 

[SupahEwok]

@fOx you created a monster

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

Prove it.

Its literally in their titles

Prove it.

Prove that it did. Show me what this big book launch announcement was that god made to tell us all the new testament was the one and only way

I don't recall ever claiming that they don't. I explicitly encouraged you to apply it to the Quran if you wanted.


Yeah, go right ahead. If you want to change the subject so badly, I'm not stopping you.

Then if even you admit we can apply your premises to the quran or old testament, in what way does the new testament remain this one and only source for morality? Why don't the other two count?

Your choice.

Lets see now, I've got this one demonstrating us us of Matthew, interesting use of "take up your cross and follow", and this one with Matthew again and "salt of the earth" was taken as a metaphor of destruction like salting the earth. Also, lot of old testament from what I can see, so clearly you're wrong when you said that didn't count. That opens up a lot of possibilities doesn't it?

That's not proof. You're just saying that chronology equals causation. It's the same kind of thing that misleading headlines do when they say "Man buys ice cream and gets shot by the police" while leaving out the armed robbery that happened after he bought the ice cream.

Bringing up dates that things existed is not proof? This is a very strange idea of proof you have

Does it? It's your argument.

Yes it does. If you've got a certain set of rules laid out and you go, "Hmm, I'll take those ones but not these ones", that would be picking and choosing

"I'd think".
So it's just your opinion?

We can find a dog and I can set it loose on you if you wish to test the theory. We can set up a grade for how badly you got mauled if you wish

Then cite those "actual historical events", preferably in the form of a link. You say that it's "documented history"? So where is it documented? Link me. Take a screenshot. Prove it.

We shall start with an easy one, the wikipedia page that exists on it that is easily viewable by anyone: "He thus demolished the fictitious structure that gave the appearance of absolute poverty to the life of the Franciscan friars, a structure that "absolved the Franciscans from the moral burden of legal ownership, and enabled them to practise apostolic poverty without the inconvenience of actual poverty". And on 12 November 1323 he issued the short bull Cum inter nonnullos, which declared "erroneous and heretical" the doctrine that Christ and his apostles had no possessions whatever."
There we go. Pope declares an entire Catholic order (apologies to Agema if I keep misusing this terminology) heretics because they've interpreted the Bible in a different way. But how can that be if the BIble is so clear and easy to understand?

@fOx you created a monster

I mean...I'm having fun

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

This is the definition of "fornication" that I am using. These were the first three links on google (The first one is from the oxford dictionary, by google's own admission)
So no, my definition is not odd. It is the standard, generally accepted, definition. If anything, your definition is odd.

Interesting, interesting, lets just check those sources a bit shall we:
First up, Mirriam Webster states: "Adultery is only used when at least one of the parties involved (either male or female) is married, whereas fornication may be used to describe two people who are unmarried (to each other or anyone else) engaging in consensual sexual intercourse."
And second, from your own wikipedia suggestion: "Fornication is generally consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other. When one of the partners having consensual sexual intercourse is a married person, it is called adultery."
So yes, alright fornication defines people having sex when they aren't married to each other...to any one at all. Meaning if you ever thought or claimed it was the same as adultery, you were just wrong.
The second one demonstrates deceptive editing on your part by the way, leaving out the second sentence like that. So we can see you're not operating from a place of misunderstanding but of actual denial

EDIT: Okay, think the links are messing things up? Slapping this bit here is the only way I can figure out the actually make the forum accept the post, and I still can't get it to link to the Apostolic Poverty wikipedia page

 

[Houseman]

Its literally in their titles

So you have no proof other than "It says New Testament in the title, therefore, it merely explains how those words are used in the bible"?
That's your final answer?

Prove that it did.

Nope, you made the claim, you have the burden of proof.

Then if even you admit we can apply your premises to the quran or old testament, in what way does the new testament remain this one and only source for morality? Why don't the other two count?

I'm only claiming that the conclusion follows the premises in post 76. I'm making no statements at all about the Quran or Islam's Allah.

Lets see now, I've got this one demonstrating us us of Matthew, interesting use of "take up your cross and follow",

The quote from your link says:

The speech, whatever its precise wording, was met with immediate enthusiasm. Some of the audience followed the reaction of the bishop of Le Puy, Adhémar of Monteil, shouting out ‘God wills it!’. The bishop then, as was almost certainly pre-choreographed, came on the stage and received his cross, the symbol of a Crusader’s vow, from Urban II. The choice of the cross as the banner of the campaign was a powerful visual reminder not only of the Crucifixion which had, after all, occurred at the Crusade’s objective of Jerusalem but also of what would then have been the well-known command from Jesus recorded in the book of Matthew of the New Testament (16:24):

If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

This isn't saying that anyone used Matthew 16:24 in order to justify the crusades, just that the cross was chosen as the banner of the campaign, and that it served as a powerful visual reminder of the verse.

and this one with Matthew again and "salt of the earth" was taken as a metaphor of destruction like salting the earth.

Without even looking it up, I am sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "salt of the earth" in Matthew 5:13 has never been taken, by anyone, other than you, as a metaphor of destruction or drew some connection between that and "salting the earth".

Anyway, yes I see that verse referenced in that speech. I don't see how this reference is being used to justify the war, however. Just because someone references the bible in a speech, it doesn't mean that the bible is used as the central justification. In Pulp Fiction, Samuel L. Jackson's character quotes a mangled version of Ezekiel. That doesn't mean the bible is his justification for killing people. He just thinks it's a cool and fitting thing to say before he kills someone.

Also, lot of old testament from what I can see

I don't see any old testament in your links besides a reference to "a land flowing with milk and honey"

Bringing up dates that things existed is not proof?

Correct. It is not.

Harry S. Truman died December 26, 1972.
Jude Law was born 29 December 1972.

What is this proof of? That one reincarnated into the other?
See? Listing "dates that things existed" is not necessarily proof of anything.

"causation by chronology" is a fallacy.

Yes it does. If you've got a certain set of rules laid out and you go, "Hmm, I'll take those ones but not these ones", that would be picking and choosing

Are these "rules laid out" in the bible somewhere?

We can find a dog and I can set it loose on you if you wish to test the theory. We can set up a grade for how badly you got mauled if you wish

Okay, so it's just your opinion.

"I disagree with God's morality! I think I know better!" is not a very convincing argument.

First up, Mirriam Webster states: "Adultery is only used when at least one of the parties involved (either male or female) is married, whereas fornication may be used to describe two people who are unmarried (to each other or anyone else) engaging in consensual sexual intercourse."

Yes it does. I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said so far.

And second, from your own wikipedia suggestion: "Fornication is generally consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other. When one of the partners having consensual sexual intercourse is a married person, it is called adultery."

I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said so far.

Meaning if you ever thought or claimed it was the same as adultery, you were just wrong.

I never did.

So we can see you're not operating from a place of misunderstanding but of actual denial

What, pray tell, am I denying?

 

[Houseman]

We shall start with an easy one, the wikipedia page that exists on it that is easily viewable by anyone: "He thus demolished the fictitious structure that gave the appearance of absolute poverty to the life of the Franciscan friars, a structure that "absolved the Franciscans from the moral burden of legal ownership, and enabled them to practise apostolic poverty without the inconvenience of actual poverty". And on 12 November 1323 he issued the short bull Cum inter nonnullos, which declared "erroneous and heretical" the doctrine that Christ and his apostles had no possessions whatever."
There we go. Pope declares an entire Catholic order (apologies to Agema if I keep misusing this terminology) heretics because they've interpreted the Bible in a different way. But how can that be if the BIble is so clear and easy to understand?

This?

I'm not seeing how any of what you quoted is The Franciscan Order being considered heretics by the Church.

What is being called "erroneous and heretical" is the "doctrine that Christ and his apostles had no possessions whatever". This was one, specific, papal bull, which was, as the name suggests, given by Pope Nicholas III. In other words, it's not something that the Franciscans made up. Then along came Pope John XXII who struck it down. All this is written in the source you quoted from.

They didn't disagree with the popes and separate from them. They took what the first pope said and adhered to it. The pope didn't accuse them of heresy, he just accused an older bull from a different pope as being heretical. There was no division, just a new pope striking down a bull from the old pope.

Michael of Cesena, however accused the Pope of heresy, and was promptly imprisoned.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

So you have no proof other than "It says New Testament in the title, therefore, it merely explains how those words are used in the bible"?
That's your final answer?

If they're a Biblical dictionary, they're defining what it's assumed those words mean in the Bible, not what the words mean

Nope, you made the claim, you have the burden of proof.

Incorrect. You are the one making a claim; that god would let us know if he updated anything. So provide evidence that he did any such thing for the new testament

I'm only claiming that the conclusion follows the premises in post 76. I'm making no statements at all about the Quran or Islam's Allah.

Except you are. Because you're saying the new testament is the only true source of morality, not the quran or old testament or any other religious tome I could mention, solely because you think it fits those premises. So if all it takes for a thing to be the ultimate example of morality is to fit those premises why is it solely the new testament and not the quran

The quote from your link says:



This isn't saying that anyone used Matthew 16:24 in order to justify the crusades, just that the cross was chosen as the banner of the campaign, and that it served as a powerful visual reminder of the verse.

Rrrright, so they're saying "the Bible lets us do this is we carry a cross!" and you're trying to say thats not justification?

Without even looking it up, I am sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that "salt of the earth" in Matthew 5:13 has never been taken, by anyone, other than you, as a metaphor of destruction or drew some connection between that and "salting the earth".

I mean its right there in the speech dude. He makes a parallel between salt of the earth and salting the earth. He's using what the Bible says to justify destruction. What a great source of morality

Anyway, yes I see that verse referenced in that speech. I don't see how this reference is being used to justify the war, however. Just because someone references the bible in a speech, it doesn't mean that the bible is used as the central justification. In Pulp Fiction, Samuel L. Jackson's character quotes a mangled version of Ezekiel. That doesn't mean the bible is his justification for killing people. He just thinks it's a cool and fitting thing to say before he kills someone.

"You have to prove they used verses from the Bible to justify the crusades!"
"Alright here's a few examples."
"What? No! Using Bible verses doesn't count!"

You can't ask for a type of evidence then deny that type of evidence counts when I provide it, thats just denial

I don't see any old testament in your links besides a reference to "a land flowing with milk and honey"

I can find them if you want, but main thing to take away is that you're apparently wrong about the old testament not counting. So can we talk about all the murder and bloodshed in that? Do all the examples of crusades in that count as justification for the crusades

See? Listing "dates that things existed" is not necessarily proof of anything.

"causation by chronology" is a fallacy.

Ah ah ah House, you were arguing about the new testament predating the church as part of your claim humans didn't write it. To which I pointed out the earliest known date of the church and the date the canonical new testament came into being. If you're going to argue about the timeline of events, bringing up dates is not a fallacy, but factual evidence

Are these "rules laid out" in the bible somewhere?

They're the ones we're arguing about, yes

Okay, so it's just your opinion.

"I disagree with God's morality! I think I know better!" is not a very convincing argument.

If someone sets their dog on you and doesn't do anything about it mauling you, is that a moral act, yes or no?

Yes it does. I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said so far.



I don't see how that contradicts anything I've said so far.



I never did.

You claim the Bible allows divorce in the context of adultery. The word used does not mean adultery, but fornication which cannot mean adultery as it between people unmarried to anyone. Thus your claim is wrong

What, pray tell, am I denying?

That historical fact is historical fact, that words that have meaning have that meaning, that a book written in a dead language a thousand years and change ago might be hard to understand...I can keep going, we've been at this a while.

This?

I'm not seeing how any of what you quoted is The Franciscan Order being considered heretics by the Church.

What is being called "erroneous and heretical" is the "doctrine that Christ and his apostles had no possessions whatever". This was one, specific, papal bull, which was, as the name suggests, given by Pope Nicholas III. In other words, it's not something that the Franciscans made up. Then along came Pope John XXII who struck it down. All this is written in the source you quoted from.

They didn't disagree with the popes and separate from them. They took what the first pope said and adhered to it. The pope didn't accuse them of heresy, he just accused an older bull from a different pope as being heretical. There was no division, just a new pope striking down a bull from the old pope.

Michael of Cesena, however accused the Pope of heresy, and was promptly imprisoned.

And if the doctrine you are following is declared heretical that makes you a...?
The word you're looking for is heretic. So they were heretics as declared by the Pope. And then not by a different Pope. But House, how could any of that happened if the Bible were so easy to understand? You realise by listing all these changes of mind you've proved my point, right?

 

[Houseman]

If they're a Biblical dictionary, they're defining what it's assumed those words mean in the Bible, not what the words mean

And your proof of that is based on your understanding of the words "Biblical dictionary", as opposed to being based on the book's own description?

Incorrect. You are the one making a claim; that god would let us know if he updated anything. So provide evidence that he did any such thing for the new testament

The first time this was brought up, I said: "Assuming the premises, God would let us know if he had updated anything."
The proof is contained in the premises.

So if all it takes for a thing to be the ultimate example of morality is to fit those premises why is it solely the new testament and not the quran

I never said it applies solely to the New Testament.

Rrrright, so they're saying "the Bible lets us do this is we carry a cross!" and you're trying to say thats not justification?

Not only is that not a justification, that's not even an understandable English sentence.
Did you mean "if we" instead of "is we"?

If so, you're fabricating a quote from whole cloth. It's a lie. The pope never said that, so no it's still not a justification.

I mean its right there in the speech dude. He makes a parallel between salt of the earth and salting the earth

Quote the section where he does that. It's much more likely that you simply misunderstood what the pope was saying.

You can't ask for a type of evidence then deny that type of evidence counts when I provide it, thats just denial

You didn't provide evidence that the bible was used to justify the crusades. You provided a speech that referenced bible verses.
Referencing the bible is not necessarily using it to justify something.

I can find them if you want

Do it.

, you were arguing about the new testament predating the church as part of your claim humans didn't write it. To which I pointed out the earliest known date of the church and the date the canonical new testament came into being. If you're going to argue about the timeline of events, bringing up dates is not a fallacy, but factual evidence

Okay, if you want to pretend that you were bringing up dates to disprove that the NT predates the church, as opposed to bringing up the dates in order to prove that the church wrote the NT, I'll pretend that too.

Here's a link from an "Associate Professor of New Testament" who says "...the church did not arbitrarily decide which books should be in the New Testament; early Christians simply acknowledged the books that were apostolic and orthodox", and "During this period of the "apostolic fathers," there is evidence that Paul's letters were already circulating as a collection and were regularly being referred to by Christians authoritatively, as were other writings of the apostles. Separately, the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were probably already circulating together at this time.

And your claim that the Catholic Church, as an organization, was around in 110 a.d is a bad claim. That's the earliest recorded usage of the phrase "catholic church". That doesn't mean that there was an organization who went around calling themselves "The Catholic Church". You'd need to understand what words themselves mean. Catholic means, literally "universally accepted". So he was saying "this universally accepted church". The word "church" was already in use by everyone else who followed the new Christian religion. There's a real blurry line between "early Catholics" and "other Christians".

According to Catholics, Catholics have existed ever since Jesus said Matthew 16:18 to Peter, but that's not really convincing unless you're Catholic. If you believe Catholics, Catholicism even predates the death of Jesus.

I'm sure the Catholics or Catholic-educated waiting to pounce on any sort of inaccuracy can provide better information.

Personally, I'd go with their legalization in 313.

They're the ones we're arguing about, yes

The Nicene Creed wrote rules into the bible?

Remember, we're talking about biblical rules, not whether or not one religion decided to pick and choose. If a religion says "we want to do this and not that", that's their problem, not the bible's problem.

If someone sets their dog on you and doesn't do anything about it mauling you, is that a moral act, yes or no?

1) My definition of morality is different than yours, so I don't see how my answer will help your argument.
2) It depends on the circumstances. Am I breaking into someone's house at night? Am I murdering somebody? Is the person even capable of doing something about the dog? Can I fight off the dog myself? I can't give a "yes or no" answer to such a vague question.

You claim the Bible allows divorce in the context of adultery. The word used does not mean adultery, but fornication which cannot mean adultery as it between people unmarried to anyone. Thus your claim is wrong

If you're married, and your spouse commits fornication (has sex with someone they aren't married to), then they've cheated on you, yes?

And if the doctrine you are following is declared heretical that makes you a...?

Who says that they continued to follow the doctrine after it was declared heretical?

From Wikipedia: " The heretic who is aware that his belief is at odds with Catholic teaching and yet continues to cling to his belief pertinaciously is a formal heretic. "

But House, how could any of that happened if the Bible were so easy to understand?

You're still working backwards. You're presuming that these papal bulls (and the ones they replace) were ever based on understanding the bible, as opposed to just things the Pope made up for other reasons, and as usual, you provide no evidence of that claim.

Your evidence should be in here. That's the bull in question that was later deemed heretical (or at least part of it was). Quote the section or sections that are based on the bible.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

And your proof of that is based on your understanding of the words "Biblical dictionary", as opposed to being based on the book's own description?

If they're a Biblical dictionary, they're defining what it's assumed those words mean in the Bible, not what the words mean

The first time this was brought up, I said: "Assuming the premises, God would let us know if he had updated anything."
The proof is contained in the premises.

No, that doesn't answer the question at all. You say god would let us know if anything got updated, how did he "let us know" about the new testament?

I never said it applies solely to the New Testament.

Then the new testament is not the sole ultimate source of morality. Any of those books could be. Even the old testament could be according to just your premises, but you said that shouldn't count. Why is solely your literature of choice that is the one true moral?




Not only is that not a justification, that's not even an understandable English sentence.
Did you mean "if we" instead of "is we"?

If so, you're fabricating a quote from whole cloth. It's a lie. The pope never said that, so no it's still not a justification.



Quote the section where he does that. It's much more likely that you simply misunderstood what the pope was saying.[/quote]
Ah so you ask for sources. I provide the sources. And once I provide them I also need to quote them? This is some very selective blindness you have going on House. If I provide the quotes are you then going to insist it doesn't count unless I provide them in Old English or something?

IYou didn't provide evidence that the bible was used to justify the crusades. You provided a speech that referenced bible verses.
Referencing the bible is not necessarily using it to justify something.

Yeah no, a speech telling people its perfectly fine to go crusading because of all these Bible verses is absolutely using the Bible as a justification for the crusades no matter how much you wish to deny it. Telling people "You are the salt of the earth, so do not fail in your duty and salt it" is using a quote from Matthew to tell people to go wreck shit. Telling people "Well hey god punished that one rich guy in Luke for ill-using his goods so its alright for us to punish people for ill-using their things" is telling people to go wreck shit.

Okay, if you want to pretend that you were bringing up dates to disprove that the NT predates the church, as opposed to bringing up the dates in order to prove that the church wrote the NT, I'll pretend that too.

Here's a link from an "Associate Professor of New Testament" who says "...the church did not arbitrarily decide which books should be in the New Testament; early Christians simply acknowledged the books that were apostolic and orthodox", and "During this period of the "apostolic fathers," there is evidence that Paul's letters were already circulating as a collection and were regularly being referred to by Christians authoritatively, as were other writings of the apostles. Separately, the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were probably already circulating together at this time.

And your claim that the Catholic Church, as an organization, was around in 110 a.d is a bad claim. That's the earliest recorded usage of the phrase "catholic church". That doesn't mean that there was an organization who went around calling themselves "The Catholic Church". You'd need to understand what words themselves mean. Catholic means, literally "universally accepted". So he was saying "this universally accepted church". The word "church" was already in use by everyone else who followed the new Christian religion. There's a real blurry line between "early Catholics" and "other Christians".

According to Catholics, Catholics have existed ever since Jesus said Matthew 16:18 to Peter, but that's not really convincing unless you're Catholic. If you believe Catholics, Catholicism even predates the death of Jesus.

I'm sure the Catholics or Catholic-educated waiting to pounce on any sort of inaccuracy can provide better information.

Personally, I'd go with their legalization in 313.

And this disproves my point...how? I mean, your first source admits that it was the church who put together all the books. And if its the church deciding what books go into the new testament, and the church translating what goes into the new testament and the church being the only ones copying out the books of the new testament...its the church writing the new testament

The Nicene Creed wrote rules into the bible?

Remember, we're talking about biblical rules, not whether or not one religion decided to pick and choose. If a religion says "we want to do this and not that", that's their problem, not the bible's problem.

If your Bible is so confusing people need to set up a whole creed to decide which bits of your god count as god or whether they're even bits of god at all, pretty sure thats the Bible's problem

1) My definition of morality is different than yours, so I don't see how my answer will help your argument.
2) It depends on the circumstances. Am I breaking into someone's house at night? Am I murdering somebody? Is the person even capable of doing something about the dog? Can I fight off the dog myself? I can't give a "yes or no" answer to such a vague question.

You've made such demands of me, so sure you can. Yes or no.

If you're married, and your spouse commits fornication (has sex with someone they aren't married to), then they've cheated on you, yes?

You need to go back to your own sources. They specifically state that if one party in the fornication is married, it becomes adultery and is no longer fornication. So your usage of the word continues to be wrong. So much for the Bible being easily interpreted

Who says that they continued to follow the doctrine after it was declared heretical?

From Wikipedia: " The heretic who is aware that his belief is at odds with Catholic teaching and yet continues to cling to his belief pertinaciously is a formal heretic. "

This doesn't really disprove my argument, does it? I point out how easily the Bible can be reinterpreted and you provide a quote that...demonstrates the modern stance on interpreting the Bible.

You're still working backwards. You're presuming that these papal bulls (and the ones they replace) were ever based on understanding the bible, as opposed to just things the Pope made up for other reasons, and as usual, you provide no evidence of that claim.

Your evidence should be in here. That's the bull in question that was later deemed heretical (or at least part of it was). Quote the section or sections that are based on the bible.

“The rule and life of the friars Minor is this, namely, to observe the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ by living in obedience, without [anything of] one’s own and in chastity,”
So basically "Jesus lived in poverty, so we should do." Basing themselves on Jesus enough basing on the Bible for you? So who is the more moral? How can two ways of reading the Bible exist if its so easy to understand?

Epilogue: Gonna have to call it quits here. I've been moved off the "watch them put dirt back in a field for ten hours a day" job so no longer have quite the same level of boredom to alleviate. With actual work to focus on, not going to have time for this anymore. Was fun while it lasted! See you around House, you slavery condoning scamp you!

 

[Houseman]

If they're a Biblical dictionary, they're defining what it's assumed those words mean in the Bible, not what the words mean

Can you prove that with anything other than "it's what I think those words mean"?
For example, can you quote any of these "biblical dictionaries" saying something like "we don't attempt to define the words, only explain how these words are used in the bible", or any other source saying this?

Because it seems like it's just your opinion based on your understanding of the words "Biblical dictionary", and it seems like you have no other evidence to back you up. You might think it's self-explanatory and obvious, but if so, you should be able to quote some other source that agrees with you, right?

If you can't cite any other source that agrees with you, I'm dismissing your argument.

No, that doesn't answer the question at all. You say god would let us know if anything got updated, how did he "let us know" about the new testament?

Probably through use of evangelizers who copied, printed, preached, and spread the book or books.

Then the new testament is not the sole ultimate source of morality.

Assuming the premises, yes it is.
If you want to apply the premises against the Quran, go ahead, but that's an entirely different discussion.

We're assuming a world in which God (the Christian God) exists, and gave us a book (the bible).
If you want to assume a world in which Allah (the God is Islam) exists, and gave us a book (the Quran), knock yourself out, but that's a different discussion.

I don't know what you're trying to do here.

Ah so you ask for sources. I provide the sources. And once I provide them I also need to quote them? This is some very selective blindness you have going on House. If I provide the quotes are you then going to insist it doesn't count unless I provide them in Old English or something?

I'm asking you to quote it because I can't find where, in those links, it says what you claim it says. So either A) I missed it, B) you're misunderstanding what your own source says, C) You're lying about what your own source says.

I'm willing to believe that the answer is A, but you have to help me out and quote it for me. If you refuse to do that, then I have to go with either B or C.

a speech telling people its perfectly fine to go crusading because of all these Bible verses

From what I can see, the speech does not use bible verses as a cause. If you disagree, quote sections of the speech that demonstrate how the bible is used as a justification or a cause.

You are the salt of the earth, so do not fail in your duty and salt it

That quote does not appear in any of your links. Please stick to verbatim quotes only, and do not paraphrase. If your claim is that Pope Urban II based the crusades on the bible, or otherwise used the bible to justify the crusades, it is essential that we only rely on verbatim quotes from Pope Urban II.

I mean, your first source admits that it was the church who put together all the books.

Prove it, because I think you either misunderstood or are lying.

and the church translating what goes into the new testament and the church being the only ones copying out the books of the new testament...

Prove that the church was the only one translating and copying out the books of the new testament.

If your Bible is so confusing people need to set up a whole creed to decide which bits of your god count as god or whether they're even bits of god at all, pretty sure thats the Bible's problem

Prove that the Nicene Creed was "because the book is confusing".

 

[Houseman]

You need to go back to your own sources. They specifically state that if one party in the fornication is married, it becomes adultery and is no longer fornication. So your usage of the word continues to be wrong. So much for the Bible being easily interpreted

No, my sources do not state that. Here, look I'll quote you:

First up, Mirriam Webster states: "Adultery is only used when at least one of the parties involved (either male or female) is married, whereas fornication may be used to describe two people who are unmarried (to each other or anyone else) engaging in consensual sexual intercourse."
And second, from your own wikipedia suggestion: "Fornication is generally consensual sexual intercourse between two people not married to each other. When one of the partners having consensual sexual intercourse is a married person, it is called adultery."

Nowhere in any of the above does it say that, in the case you brought up, that it "is no longer fornication".
One does not cancel out the other and you have no evidence that they do.
You either misunderstood or are lying.

This doesn't really disprove my argument, does it?

Your argument is that the Franciscans were condemned as heretics, but you have no evidence that supports that claim.
I'm not disproving you so much as pointing out that you have no evidence.

“The rule and life of the friars Minor is this, namely, to observe the Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ by living in obedience, without [anything of] one’s own and in chastity,”
So basically "Jesus lived in poverty, so we should do." Basing themselves on Jesus enough basing on the Bible for you?

Great, that's one part, now do the one that struck this down as heretical and prove that it was based on the bible too. You need both to prove your point.
If one is based on the bible and the other isn't, then all you have is people putting their subjective earthly whims over the bible.

Epilogue: Gonna have to call it quits here. I've been moved off the "watch them put dirt back in a field for ten hours a day" job so no longer have quite the same level of boredom to alleviate. With actual work to focus on, not going to have time for this anymore. Was fun while it lasted! See you around House, you slavery condoning scamp you!

See you! I hope you don't do your real job backwards too!

 

[Agema]

Can you prove that with anything other than "it's what I think those words mean"?
For example, can you quote any of these "biblical dictionaries" saying something like "we don't attempt to define the words, only explain how these words are used in the bible", or any other source saying this?

The basic function of any dictionary is to be descriptive, not proscriptive: a word does not mean something because the dictionary says so, the dictionary attempts to explain the various meanings of words. And the dictionary may be wrong.

The basic way communication works is that someone uses words to explain something based on their subjective understanding of those words. The other person then attempts to divine meaning, but must do so on their subjective understanding of the words, although that it likely to be different. Ideally their separate, subjective understanding of the words is sufficiently similar that most of the meaning survives. Words therefore work for communication when people have similar notions of what they mean. Dictionaries attempt to collect and detail what these common similarities in understanding are, to help people make sense of words they encounter that they don't know or are used in a way they don't know.

But the only way to be mostly sure about what meaning was intended in a text is to ask the author of the text. Everything else is a best guess.

 

[Kae]

I would address my arguments from the other day, but after reading this painfully long thread I have found that there is absolutely nothing I could add that hasn't been said before, and I honestly don't want to be part of the cycle of repeating the exact same points ad-nauseam, so I just wanted to say, how the hell are you people able to hold this same discussion for so long?!

I don't have that kind of attention span!

Also @Houseman is wrong and the bible is open to interpretation!

I'd explain why but we've gone over this already besides @Agema explained it better than I can in the post above, especially since I'm an idiot and not very eloquent at all.

 

[Houseman]

The basic function of any dictionary is to be descriptive, not proscriptive: a word does not mean something because the dictionary says so, the dictionary attempts to explain the various meanings of words. And the dictionary may be wrong.

The basic way communication works is that someone uses words to explain something based on their subjective understanding of those words. The other person then attempts to divine meaning, but must do so on their subjective understanding of the words, although that it likely to be different. Ideally their separate, subjective understanding of the words is sufficiently similar that most of the meaning survives. Words therefore work for communication when people have similar notions of what they mean. Dictionaries attempt to collect and detail what these common similarities in understanding are, to help people make sense of words they encounter that they don't know or are used in a way they don't know.

But the only way to be mostly sure about what meaning was intended in a text is to ask the author of the text. Everything else is a best guess.

I'm aware. Palindrome, however, is saying that the sources I posted are "defining what it's assumed those words mean in the Bible, not what the words mean "

So for instance, he thinks that the authors of "biblical dictionaries" merely open the bible, read all instances of a certain word, and then just write down how the word is used and what they think it means.

I asked him to prove that, and never offered anything more than "because it says 'Bible dictionary' in the name!"

how the hell are you people able to hold this same discussion for so long?!

Spite. Pure spite.

 

[Agema]

I'm aware. Palindrome, however, is saying that the sources I posted are "defining what it's assumed those words mean in the Bible, not what the words mean "

So for instance, he thinks that the authors of "biblical dictionaries" merely open the bible, read all instances of a certain word, and then just write down how the word is used and what they think it means.

Yes, but he's not entirely wrong.

There's a word, and experts in ancient Greek will sift through all sorts of texts (not just the Bible) to see what it means in them, and then compare to the use in the Bible (together with context) to make an educated guess. Of course it can be worse than that, because large tracts of the Bible were translated into Greek from Aramaic or Hebrew (by people who may not have been so assiduous or expert?) and a lot of that original material doesn't exist any more, so original meaning has potentially been altered even at the point of what we consider the canonical Greek.

It's probably easy in ways. If you have a word that very generally means "immoral sex" and it's in the middle of a story of a man boffing someone who isn't his wife, it almost certainly best translates to English as adultery, whereas elsewhere if about a man procuring a woman of the streets, it almost certainly best translates to English as prostitution. Although even still, there is no absolute guarantee such a translation is correct, and even if it is "best fit", a 95% best fit has still lost 5% original meaning.

 

[Houseman]

There's a word, and experts in ancient Greek will sift through all sorts of texts (not just the Bible) to see what it means in them, and then compare to the use in the Bible (together with context) to make an educated guess.

I agree with you. I don't think Palindrome would, however, as he insists that it's "attempting to demonstrate the Bible is accurate by pointing to the Bible"

 

[Iron]

I don't think it was (((slavery))), more like slavery was something prevalent in the region and the texts reflected it.

If you feel bad because of it, think of this hypothesis for a moment. I'll assume you consume animal products. People in two hundred years may be entirely vegan, thinking the practice of killing other animals for sustenance as abhorrent, and would view similar depictions of animal abuse in the bible as disgusting and immoral. At the same time they would view you as a savage, simply because you've eaten a chicken sandwich.

 

[Palindromemordnilap]

I just wanted to say, how the hell are you people able to hold this same discussion for so long?!

I don't have that kind of attention span!

Boredom. Give me nothing to do for a ten hour work shift but watch machines move earth back into a field and by the end of the day my head is jumping just for something to do. Thankfully thats over, so my energy goes elsewhere

 

[SupahEwok]

If you feel bad because of it, think of this hypothesis for a moment. I'll assume you consume animal products. People in two hundred years may be entirely vegan, thinking the practice of killing other animals for sustenance as abhorrent, and would view similar depictions of animal abuse in the bible as disgusting and immoral. At the same time they would view you as a savage, simply because you've eaten a chicken sandwich.

I actually have a philosophical stance on this.

So, there's a lot of interesting information about animal culture and cognition, mainly in the fact that we have found evidence of their existence. I believe it was chimpanzees (it could be baboons instead, I don't remember precisely) who formed troops, who've been found to follow a leader who isn't necessarily the largest or the strongest, but the one able to maintain the largest social alliance. To that end, chimpanzees have been observed to gossip, communicating who was trustworthy in the troop and who wasn't, for their social alliances. That's basically human social networking.

There's a bird species, I think crows. It's been observed that one crow can be attacked by a person, and that person could go away and come back to a different group of crows in the same area, but the crows can recognize the specific person and stay away or attack them. The only way this could happen is if crows could communicate detailed descriptions of their attackers and be understood by other crows.

There's all sorts of other interesting things that go on in the animal kingdom, but the bottom line is: many species exhibit the ability to communicate and collaborate. If you strip out our technological development, and view our own species in a pre-agricultural context, we aren't that far above the rest of the animal kingdom in terms of the big picture. Like, on a scale of a rock to a human for cognition, most of the rest of the animal kingdom, or at least the mammals, are way far on the side closer to humans.

For chimpanzees in particular, the only thing that may separate us from them is about 1 million years of development time. Life itself began on the microscopic level around 3.7 billion years ago. Complex life, beyond the microscopic, emerged about 500 million years ago. So only 1/500th of the time that it took for "macro" life to form to now is what separates the next lower life form in the cognitive ladder from us. Really, if we look beyond our own measly life spans, that's not a lot separating us, is it?

And I don't just honor chimpanzees. When you get down to it, everything evolved from a common ancestor, whatever bit of the primordial soup that had the chemical reaction that resulted in the life process. We are the first and latest great step in cognitive evolution, but there's plenty of other evolutionary branches that could take that step given time and our non-interference. Even plants, perhaps, if you give them another billion years we have no idea what could emerge.

Therefore, I don't think that it is "right" to consume any life, as any life consumed is destroying the evolutionary potential for cognitive evolution in the biosphere.

This is in direct contradiction to the very biological processes which fuel life, wherein all macro-life (except for a lot of plants and possibly with a few other very bizzare exceptions) gains energy from consumption of other life. For humans in particular, it isn't possible to photosynthesize and gain nutrients from a non-biological source in the soil, or any other way to gain energy but consumption of life. Therefore, I don't think there is any moral consumption, and if I can't eat morally, I might as well eat what I want and stop worrying about it.

Mind, this is a philosophical argument. Practically speaking, the people 200 years from now will likely either have a very reduced technology level, or they will all be vegan because meat and dairy consumption are not energy sustainable.

 

[Agema]

There's a bird species, I think crows. It's been observed that one crow can be attacked by a person, and that person could go away and come back to a different group of crows in the same area, but the crows can recognize the specific person and stay away or attack them. The only way this could happen is if crows could communicate detailed descriptions of their attackers and be understood by other crows.

This is unlikely.

Crows are thought to be relatively good at recognition and memory, sure. But I severely doubt they have a way to communicate detailed information like what a specific human being looks like. I suspect if a crow is attacked, it is more likely that the attacked crow (or another crow that witnessed the attack) either calls a warning or displays some sort fear/anger reaction when the attacker is sighted. The crows in the vicinity react accordingly.