Total posts: 5
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I agree. That's why I said it's contributed to my atheism to theism, that gradual change, not why I chose my religion. I also did state I studied theologies, the history of religions, read the related scriptures, and had personal experiences I recognised wouldn't convert anyone else in relation to the religion itself. It'd be foolish of me to use a "need" or a "want" and declare it as truth as those are completely different things. Needs can, however, be fulfilled by religions. If a lonely person converted and found themselves in a mosque, synagogue, temple, or elsewhere, it can fill up their need for belonging and love. It doesn't mean they're using that need as the foundation to declare that the faith itself is true. Clubs, sports, and elsewhere can fulfill that same need. Becoming homeless and driven into the priesthood can also fix the living situation. Helping others through the faith can also lift esteem. Filling your serving your purpose can help you attain self-actualisation. The other needs can be fulfilled secularly as well. It's still not solving the truth issue, just a personal issue, but personal issues can help solidify your drive. Different issues, but can be related, though.
My point in that semi-essay (before and now) that religion helped me take care of the disorder in my life that made me depressed. The contention on the god is a valid bit, but I sought out other means before ever deciding to become theist and that wasn't out of need alone, but various other problems that accumulated over the years, and that isn't "need" or "want" related. Becoming an agnostic theistic, more specifically deistic, made my outlook open-ended and not particularly limited. Fluctuations led to an adventure, then settled on EOC until, or if, my position changes again.
Created:
Posted in:
… Confused as to where this thread went. Fellow Orthobro (Orthosis? Orthosister. Idk. I'm probably not as hip as I think I am). In any case, just as a note, I use RSVCE, but I also check through other translations and look at the Hebrew and Greek when available, especially on translations that appear contested—e.g., when the NIV translated the Hebrew term "come out" as "miscarry" while other translations used "born prematurely."
But anyway, I'll cover these in order if you don't mind. And if these were already commented on, then my bad for a lengthy post.
Note II: The entire chapter of Matthew 13 builds on itself. The ones at the beginning relate to the parables at the end, and each covers specific ideas but essentially the same issue.
Matthew 13:24-35
The seeds Jesus planted is Truth, and then others came after and began tarnishing it, forming weeds. The wheat will enter the barn, the faithful into the kingdom, and the weeds will be taken out and burned. It's an additional commentary, though, that when people are apathetic, then falsehoods can harm their faith, their "crops." Matthew 13, then, seems more aptly a commentary on those that are lukewarm in their faith.
Matthew 13:47-50
In these verses, it discusses those entering into the Church, which is the "net." A variety entered, some devout, some lukewarm, and thus this parable would be for them. A distinction is made frequently in scripture between those that live the lifestyle and those that are more cultural in name rather than fundamentally Christian in action and value. As noted before, there is figurative imagery.
The good will be kept which is believed to be the commentary on "vessels." They'll be kept in heaven and with God to experience God. I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that the reason for the question may have been connected to the basis that fish are typically eaten, but the parables were intended to convey an aspect of what was being taught and is not always intended literally in its entirety.
Conversely, to cover the bad ones: In the Church, there is the process of excommunication. If someone refuses to live like a Christian, instead resorting to bringing others down, teaching against the Church, being so greedy that they'd even throw the innocent aside to sate their urges, then they'd be cast away. An example of this is in Matthew 18:15-17, which says: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if refuses to even listen to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and tax collector." In other words, they'll be cast away (sent out of the church). In the kingdom of heaven, this is the same. If they aren't truly for God and don't live the lifestyle commanded of them, they would have to experience the waiting period or, if they never truly had faith, hell. The topic of hell is a different matter that I can discuss at a different time.
As it pertains to hell, I could attempt to discuss this, but the focus of your questions are on "goodness," which I will attempt to focus on rather than lengthily get into something you didn't ask about. As the parables aren't that concerned about talking about heaven, it doesn't really get into it. Instead, it's discussing those that don't live their faith, which is why it doesn't describe, really, what happens to the "good." What happens to the "good" is discussed elsewhere, like the House on Rocks in Matthew 7:24-27. Those that are "good" would become pure in heart and see God (Matthew 5:8, 1 John 3:2-3). What exactly we'll find, we won't actually know for absolute certainty. The good has a place being prepared for them (John 14:24). Revelation also describes it as a place where our tears will be wiped away, with no morning and no death. You may already know these, though, so I'll finish that here. Hopefully, I answered your questions.
Note: There are likely those with an entirely different exegesis. But this is a reading I get from it as does my Church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The "need" is something I'm not sure of. I was fine being an atheist. My transition into theism itself was surprising, and my friends even thought I was trolling for a good five months. I think, probably, it's order. I do suffer quite a bit in disorder and past experiences, so it likely helps with it. Being Catholic in general has been substantially pleasant. It's not that I don't fundamentally believe in the religion either, by saying this, I do, more so now then since in the beginning, but I would say it's likely what first brought me into the fold. With Maslow's hierarchy, I didn't really fall in the first levels. Maybe esteem, but therapy helped with that. Doctrines itself and the study behind the religion didn't "fulfill" anything (at least not observationally). Even the thought of dying didn't bother me and in my darkest moments where I thought I could die, it was fine regardless of whether an afterlife existed after the fact. So, maybe it's something I've yet to figure out, but I think "order" is likely it.
I don't know if that sufficiently answers your question, but I could attempt to further specify if needed.
Created:
Posted in:
I grew up Methodist, loosely, in a mostly secular household and left the religion entirely for about five to six years contentedly. I decided to pursue sociology and psychology, delving closely into religious psychology and sociology (e.g., self-fulfilling prophecies and the frequency effect in association with personal encounters). I studied theology and its apologetics alongside it as a person's understanding of theology and general spiritual beliefs also affect other realms of their lives, including their decisions in voting for political candidates, how to treat others, education, how it affects a person's critical thinking, and such of this nature. History of the religions and the scripture itself was included. I spent some time arguing against it as well, as I found it detrimental psychologically and socially.
After those years, I eventually became an Eastern Orthodox Catholic. Personal experiences (which I already recognise I can't pass off to anyone else as evidence, and yes I already filtered through the beforementioned phenomenon) and study just led me there. I'm not entirely sure when the transition to adamant atheism to theism took place. Just a gradual thing. I've been quite happy in joining it and have dedicated some time into teaching and living betterment since then.
As to why, I'd just say it's from those studies and as something that made the most sense religiously speaking after I spent time studying Hinduism, Shinto, the polytheistic variations (less so on Norse and Kemeticism, but I'm working on it). People will, of course, contest this. This may change over time and I may find myself in a different religious system or an atheist again if it ever came down to it.
Created:
Posted in:
I mean, rape was massively looked down upon in the Hebrew scripture, so much so that all of the tribes of Israel warred with the Benjamites for not doing anything about the men in Gibeah. Others have already addressed these points, (e.g., the ending of Judges 21 in which it introduces the fact that God had not commanded their deeds).
It's basically widely known that women didn't have the best position in that culture, especially in consideration of it being a 'purity' culture. Rape, then, would have ruined the woman's life, especially since lying does exist, and many men would be wary of that, even more with the sexual diseases the Israelites would have experienced (such as the one recorded in Numbers). But it's also because of this fact that rape takes an even wider negative outlook for persons.
In Genesis 34, Jacob's daughter, Dinah, was raped by a prince named Shechem who had become infatuated with her. This deeply angered Jacob and his sons, which eventually led to his sons massacring all of the males in the city after Jacob had the king (whose intentions were to marry Dinah with his son Shechem) circumcise them. In Judges 19, a concubine is gang-raped until morning and dies, which upsets her husband and all of the tribes, issuing a war between the tribes and Benjamites (the event I mentioned earlier).
In Deuteronomy, there is a ruling on female captives.
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, discard her captive’s garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. (Deuteronomy 21:10-14, NRSV)
Putting aside, first, the overall substance of what the verse is conveying, the key issue here is that God does not allow sexual activities outside of marriage as observed as an example here. It couldn't be done while she mourned and it couldn't be done until they married. Adultery and fornication were both equally punishable. The Israelites knew fully the significance and holiness of marriage. Additionally, they also knew the rights and privileges granted to someone that became a wife.
"Sex slaves" were never really sex slaves. Concubines were functionally wives. The concubine in Judges, mentioned above, even left her husband and went to be with her father for an extended period of time due to a conflict between her and her husband. If she had been a slave without a wifely capacity, her husband could have told her not to; however, he couldn't and didn't, forcing him to go and make amends. Even women given by their fathers as 'slaves' weren't leaving to be a slave, but to be a wife.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed; he shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter. If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money. (Exodus 21:7-11, NRSV)
A notorious passage directly relating to whether God condones rape is in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, the man who lay with her shall give fifty shekels of silver to the young woman’s father, and she shall become his wife. Because he violated her he shall not be permitted to divorce her as long as he lives. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29, NRSV)
This, definitely, does appear to be punishing the woman, but this isn't a standalone verse, either. Relatedly, the alternative option is the money being accepted, but there being no marriage.
When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins. (Exodus 22:16-17)
If God looks down on rape, why would he allow it in general? This relates to culture. Most people except the cities morally depraved looked down on rape. Fathers, especially, as they raised their daughters and recognised the damage rape could issue. Not all did and, unfortunately, offered their daughters to be gang-raped instead of their guests. I wouldn't say these instances exemplify biblical values (and that's not a matter I would speak of as an atheist myself). However, this does illustrate that the man is now obligated to take care of her for the rest of her life if her father is unable to find a husband that would marry her despite not being a virgin. Should she have no one familially to take care of her after her father's demise, the subsequent result would have been prostitution or something similar. Marriage to a rapist, while undoubtedly being painful, would have been a result when others were exhausted; even more, it'd be a result to minimise the amount of damage done to her long-term. She now had to be taken care of for the rest of her days.
Since he could not divorce her for "as long as he lives," he now had to support her even if she committed deeds that made her sexually indecent.
Rape would be considered sexual immorality based on the regulations concerning sex and marriage.
Created: