Who are the NT epistles aimed at?

[Stranger]

I doubt it this darkness you can cut with a knife,but what good is a knife in a world of disembodied spirits.in a timeless zone.

Timeless, eh? Not much opportunity to appreciate all the that darkness....

[~TW~]

Timeless, eh? Not much opportunity to appreciate all the that darkness....

 Well you take your choice no need to rush  Oh and before I forget the epistles are for the church so not a problem for you hell club holiday makers.
~TW~

[bluehillside Retd.]

TW,

I doubt it this darkness you can cut with a knife,but what good is a knife in a world of disembodied spirits.in a timeless zone.

But dammit man we're talking fluorescent hands here - no matter how dark it is you can still see them because they provide their own energy source.

So I'm sorted then?

Satan (for it is he): "Welcome to the fiery pit bluehillside - maw ha ha haaaaar."

Bluehillside: "Oh hi there Stan - so you do exist after all. Who'd have thought it eh? So how's tricks?"

Satan: "Er, never mind all that - you don't happen to have the time on you do you?"

Bluehillside: "No problem at all old son. I'll just consult my handy glow in the dark Timex...yup, it's Chinese dentist: two-thirty."

Satan. "Thanks. Was that supposed to be some kind of joke by the way?"

Bluehillside: "Yeah, sorry about that. Who's that in the corner strapped to a grill over the barbecue coals by the way?"

Satan: "Oh him - that's TW. Turns out God really does't like folks being a nasty pieces of work so he made a reservation specially for that one. This is just the warm up mind - we're having the gimp suit made up now ready to chain him in the bathroom stall used exclusively by evangelical preachers with ambitious combovers. It's gonna be grisly...mwa ha ha..well, you get the gist by now I'm sure.

Nice cup of tea and a biscuit while you wait to be processed?"

[Rhiannon]

Hope,

Perhaps you could comment on this:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

[~TW~]

TW,

But dammit man we're talking fluorescent hands here - no matter how dark it is you can still see them because they provide their own energy source.

So I'm sorted then?

Satan (for it is he): "Welcome to the fiery pit bluehillside - maw ha ha haaaaar."

Bluehillside: "Oh hi there Stan - so you do exist after all. Who'd have thought it eh? So how's tricks?"

Satan: "Er, never mind all that - you don't happen to have the time on you do you?"

Bluehillside: "No problem at all old son. I'll just consult my handy glow in the dark Timex...yup, it's Chinese dentist: two-thirty."

Satan. "Thanks. Was that supposed yo be some kind of joke by the way?"

Bluehillside: "Yeah, sorry about that. Who's that in the corner strapped to a grill over the barbecue coals by the way?"

Satan: "Oh him - that's TW. Turns out God really does't like folks being a nasty pieces of work so he made a reservation specially for that one. This is just the warm up mind - we're having the gimp suit made up now ready to chain him in the bathroom stall used exclusively by evangelical preachers with ambitious combovers. It's gonna be grisly...mwa ha ha..well, you get the gist by now I'm sure.

Nice cup of tea and a biscuit while you wait to be processed?"

 Well Bluehillside I see you guessed it you suffer from delirium as well Satan might show you Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but then in darkness would you see it mind you floo might be having a go at you delirum is the word.

 ~TW~

[bluehillside Retd.]

TW,

Well Bluehillside I see you guessed it you suffer from delirium as well Satan might show you Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but then in darkness would you see it mind you floo might be having a go at you delirum is the word.

Aw - it was going so well what with your true to form spitting bile and venom then the red mist came down and the words got all jumbled up again.

Oh well. Stan just called by the way - seems he's ready for your fitting, so run along now...

...while you still can.

[jjohnjil]

I doubt it this darkness you can cut with a knife,but what good is a knife in a world of disembodied spirits.in a timeless zone.


 ~TW~

That's nothing, TW, I've lived in Dagenham, so I should know.

[Shaker]

Dagenham? Dagenham? I've worked in Corby and I am here to tell you that in comparison Dagenham is paradise on earth.

[Rhiannon]

That's only because you haven't been to Harlow.

[floo]

Perfectly happy yes  .but you should be happy with Gordon and the rest so be happy as each tick of the clock brings you closer to the place they call hell.Where the clock does not tick just darkness and no time so you will not need a watch 

  ~TW~

Hell would be being in heaven with your evil deity, Satan is a saint in comparison.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Heaven Above,

If your names not on the list,


Look mate it's the rules right, elf and safety, I don't make the rules, take it up with the management,

But it say here in the rule book,

No mate those are the old rules,

Old rules, who changed them, was there a meeting,

Yes mate, after the big man left us we decided,

Haud oan, haud the bus, who is we and I thought the whole business was that the big man is always around,

Ah well, yes, metaphorically speaking,

Oh! metaphorically is it! Don't start with yer big words with me, did you consult the big man about changing the rules,

Weeelll!!

Don't well me pal! The Gospels is what the Church stands on, not yer Epistles

To end, Hope old buddy, The Gospels are for all, not just members of a club.

Gonnagle.

[Brownie]

That's only because you haven't been to Harlow.

Try the Blackfen end of Sidcup  .  Nine long years I endured that.

[jjohnjil]

Try the Blackfen end of Sidcup  .  Nine long years I endured that.

There you go, TW, you'll have to come up with somewhere a lot more unpleasant to threaten us with. 

[~TW~]

There you go, TW, you'll have to come up with somewhere a lot more unpleasant to threaten us with.

Well I am very kind and compassionate so will refrain from suggesting another place after all hell is always receiving new clients.

 So get on with your topic.
~TW~

[Hope]

Unlike Christian 'rules and regs', which don't apply to everyone, which is what you seem to be saying.

No, in the same way that drink-drive laws potentially apply to all the nation - ie anyone can be stopped and breathalysed, even though in practice it is generally only those who are driving erratically who are, and only those who have been drinking who could find themselves being charged under them, God's laws able to everyone, but generally only those who are Christians (or Jews - in regard to the 10 Commandments) who are immediately answerable to them.

No glossing over it at all: this is no more than a faith-based claim based on ancient anecdote, and a grandiose one at that.

If it is only ancient anecdote, you have somehow got to show that what the Jews and then Christians down the ages have believed is wrong.  Simply casting doubt on the beliefs is not sufficient.  That doubt has to to be turned to concrete evidence - and as far as I'm aware no-one on this board has been able to do that, and nor has anyone been able to do so for 2000 and more years. Before you go into all the 'fallacy' rubbish that you and others like to use as a means of avoiding the question - you and I can cast doubt on anything, but until we produce the evidence to show that that doubt is valid, the 'anything' remains valid.

The 'universal' bit is grandiosity if this implies that it is relevant to the 'whole of humanity', as you've suggested. I doubt you are seriously suggesting that society wouldn't have tackled the issue of slavery were in not for the efforts of Christians, commendable though there efforts were.

Gordon, I am arguing that there was no other religious or economic system around in Jesus' time that suggested that slavery or its equivalent was wrong.  It was common practice in both Greek and Roman society - some would even suggest that those two societies relied on it; bonded labour has been part and parcel of Eastern cultures for centuries. Likewise, Aztec and Mayan culture used them a lot - and the irony of much of the European slave trade is that it often started off with African tribes taking prisoners from other tribes in warfare and selling them to middlemen - often Arab - for selling on to Europeans.

Morality isn't exclusive to Christianity you know, and nobody has ever suggested to my knowledge that some aspects of Christian thought are compatible with other moral outlooks, especially since some of those both predate Christianity and have influenced Christianity.

Can you provide any evidence for systems of belief and thought, other than Christianity, that might have kick-started the change in thinking towards slavery that you outline here?

More grandiosity, which is surprising to see since in the society we both live in Christianity is in decline.

Unfortunately, we have very little recorded evidence to show whether this is a permanent thing, or a cyclical process that happens every few generations or even decades; as I've pointed out elsewhere before, the 1904 revival in S. Wales saw hundreds od people come to Christ from unbelief, as well as hundreds of people coming back to the church having turned their backs on it previously.  Unfortunately, for both of us, as it was deemed that everyone living in the UK was a 'Christian' by the state we have no idea of what the changes really showed.  It still doesn't mean that the Christian message isn't for the 'whole of humanity'

Which is a grandiose claim in itself

You seem to think that by using this phrase 'grandiose claim' exonerates you from explaining why it can't be the case.

[Brownie]

Hope, Rhiannon posted a link earlier today and asked for your comment.  It is really worth reading so I am copying it here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

[floo]

Try the Blackfen end of Sidcup  .  Nine long years I endured that.

We were in Eastbourne for 9 months in 2005 that was way more than enough for us!

[Shaker]

If it is only ancient anecdote, you have somehow got to show that what the Jews and then Christians down the ages have believed is wrong.  Simply casting doubt on the beliefs is not sufficient.  That doubt has to to be turned to concrete evidence - and as far as I'm aware no-one on this board has been able to do that, and nor has anyone been able to do so for 2000 and more years. Before you go into all the 'fallacy' rubbish that you and others like to use as a means of avoiding the question - you and I can cast doubt on anything, but until we produce the evidence to show that that doubt is valid, the 'anything' remains valid.

My my, aren't we rattled

That "fallacy rubbish" as you call it - clearly you're referring to the negative proof fallacy, to which you're slavishly devoted and which you're here boring on with yet again - is that principle of logic which shows up the irrationality, illogicality and sheer baselessness of your beliefs. The essential principle you've never grasped, and which you are presumably constitutionally incapable of grasping, is that amongst other needful prerequisites to be considered rationally grounded a belief has to be substantiated in some way - the mere lack of conclusive evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to establish its truth no matter how many times you insist that it is. It isn't.

People don't point this out to you in order to avoid anything; they do so in order to demonstrate that your thinking is grievously flawed. There's avoidance here aplenty, but it's all yours; the avoidance of taking on board the fact - it is one - that what you regard as reasoning is fallacious. Wave your hands, close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and chant 'la la la la la' as loudly as you wish, but your aberrant reasoning is a fact, has been a fact and will remain so, since there's no real likelihood that you will ever acquire the humility to admit that you are mired in error.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Ill leave others to demolish your latest effort. As for this particularly egregious pile of gryphon doo-doo though:

If it is only ancient anecdote, you have somehow got to show that what the Jews and then Christians down the ages have believed is wrong.  Simply casting doubt on the beliefs is not sufficient.  That doubt has to to be turned to concrete evidence - and as far as I'm aware no-one on this board has been able to do that, and nor has anyone been able to do so for 2000 and more years. Before you go into all the 'fallacy' rubbish that you and others like to use as a means of avoiding the question - you and I can cast doubt on anything, but until we produce the evidence to show that that doubt is valid, the 'anything' remains valid.

It's hard to know where to begin when someone packs so much wrong into so short a space.

All that's actually necessary is to "prove" that their arguments for an objective god were wrong because logically fallacious arguments are by definition necessarily wrong arguments. That's not to say that - just as a stopped clock is right twice a day - they may not have guessed a correct answer, just as I may have guessed correctly about leprechauns. It is though to say that there's no reason to think them to be right - ie, the definition of atheism.

This negative proof issue always has had you foxed hasn't it. It really isn't hard though - all you need to focus on is the truism that, "you can't disprove it" does not mean that "it" is therefore true.

After all these attempts at explaining to you where you go wrong on this, could you at least indicate whether you grasp the point even if its import is lost on you?

[Hope]

Hope,

Ill leave others to demolish your latest effort. As for this particularly egregious pile of gryphon doo-doo though:

It's hard to know where to begin when someone packs so much wrong into so short a space.

Neither people here, or anywhere else have managed to demolish the argument, bhs, so I can understand why you feel unable to do so yourself.

All that's actually necessary is to "prove" that their arguments for an objective god were wrong because logically fallacious arguments are by definition necessarily wrong arguments. That's not to say that - just as a stopped clock is right twice a day - they may not have guessed a correct answer, just as I may have guessed correctly about leprechauns. It is though to say that there's no reason to think them to be right - ie, the definition of atheism.

There have been people in the UK casting doubt on the validity of the monarchy for 4 or 500years, bhs.  Yet we still have a monarchy in this country.  Why?  Because no-one has been able to provide evidence that any other system is better. 

You can argue that there is no god, but until you can show that any alternative understanding is any more valid (something that people have been trying to do for centuries, by the way), your arguments are just that, unsubstantiated opinion.

This negative proof issue always has had you foxed hasn't it. It really isn't hard though - all you need to focus on is the truism that, "you can't disprove it" does not mean that "it" is therefore true.

No, it hasn't foxed me at all; if anything, I think it is an overused get-out clause that means folk like you feel that you don't have to engage in debate, research and study.

[Shaker]

No, it hasn't foxed me at all; if anything, I think it is an overused get-out clause that means folk like you feel that you don't have to engage in debate, research and study.

It very clearly has, because you continue to make such an egregious error in reasoning - and indeed, have just done so twice within twenty minutes.

Research and study cuts both ways - research and study into logical fallacies would do you the power of good. Since you're clearly not going to bother doing that (that would require a degree of intellectual humility which you don't have and likely will never possess), why should anybody else bother?

Far from being an overused get-out clause, the negative proof fallacy is a fundamental logical principle which shows up just how disordered your reasoning capacities really are.

No wonder you don't want to grapple with it.

[Gordon]

No, in the same way that drink-drive laws potentially apply to all the nation - ie anyone can be stopped and breathalysed, even though in practice it is generally only those who are driving erratically who are, and only those who have been drinking who could find themselves being charged under them, God's laws able to everyone, but generally only those who are Christians (or Jews - in regard to the 10 Commandments) who are immediately answerable to them.

Nope - people who don't drive won't get breathalysed for driving issues, and as such this particular imperative only applies to a sub-set of the population.  This seems to be what you were saying earlier, when you noted that Christian 'rules and regs' only apply to Christians, and yet it seems you're now trying to say that somehow or other they potentially apply to all of us - make up your mind 
 

If it is only ancient anecdote, you have somehow got to show that what the Jews and then Christians down the ages have believed is wrong.

I'll decline your invitation to commit the negative proof fallacy.

Simply casting doubt on the beliefs is not sufficient.  That doubt has to to be turned to concrete evidence - and as far as I'm aware no-one on this board has been able to do that, and nor has anyone been able to do so for 2000 and more years

Negative proof fallacy again Hope: the burden of proof is yours.

Before you go into all the 'fallacy' rubbish that you and others like to use as a means of avoiding the question - you and I can cast doubt on anything, but until we produce the evidence to show that that doubt is valid, the 'anything' remains valid.

No it doesn't - the burden of proof is yours. Hasn't it dawned on you yet that you are routinely commiting reasoning errors?

Gordon, I am arguing that there was no other religious or economic system around in Jesus' time that suggested that slavery or its equivalent was wrong.  It was common practice in both Greek and Roman society - some would even suggest that those two societies relied on it; bonded labour has been part and parcel of Eastern cultures for centuries. Likewise, Aztec and Mayan culture used them a lot - and the irony of much of the European slave trade is that it often started off with African tribes taking prisoners from other tribes in warfare and selling them to middlemen - often Arab - for selling on to Europeans.

That slavery was culturally acceptable in antiquity just highlights that the moral zeitgeist isn't static - we don't send little boys up chimneys any more either! What is your point?
 

Can you provide any evidence for systems of belief and thought, other than Christianity, that might have kick-started the change in thinking towards slavery that you outline here?

Certainly, since morality is subjective then approaches such as utilitarianism or virtue ethics could lead you to conclusions that x is right or wrong. Reaching a moral position doesn't require Christianity you know.
   

Unfortunately, we have very little recorded evidence to show whether this is a permanent thing, or a cyclical process that happens every few generations or even decades; as I've pointed out elsewhere before, the 1904 revival in S. Wales saw hundreds od people come to Christ from unbelief, as well as hundreds of people coming back to the church having turned their backs on it previously.  Unfortunately, for both of us, as it was deemed that everyone living in the UK was a 'Christian' by the state we have no idea of what the changes really showed.

Recent evidence shows that is some societies, such as here in the U.K., religious affiliation is in decline and no amount of wriggling changes that.

It still doesn't mean that the Christian message isn't for the 'whole of humanity'

Of course it does, no matter how much you protest otherwise, since there are increasing numbers who are ambivalent to Christianity and then there are those of us who actively reject it. I don't wan't to be a member of your club and I find your grandiose claims that I am by default.

You seem to think that by using this phrase 'grandiose claim' exonerates you from explaining why it can't be the case.

I've just used it again since by your claiming that Christianity is for 'all of humanity' you are spuriously claiming more than you are reasonably entitled to claim, since the one instance of humanity who is typing this is firmly telling you that your religion has no claim on me: as such perhaps you should say in future 'all of humanity -1', although there may well be more than I who don't want to be considered a member of your club - even by default.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Neither people here, or anywhere else have managed to demolish the argument, bhs, so I can understand why you feel unable to do so yourself.

Of course they have - it's trivially easy to do. The negative proof fallacy of which you're so fond is a basic mistake in reasoning - it is ipso facto already a "demolished" argument.

There have been people in the UK casting doubt on the validity of the monarchy for 4 or 500years, bhs.  Yet we still have a monarchy in this country.  Why?  Because no-one has been able to provide evidence that any other system is better.

That may or may not be the case, but it's entirely irrelevant to the factual claims of Christians and Jews we were actually discussing.   

You can argue that there is no god, but until you can show that any alternative understanding is any more valid (something that people have been trying to do for centuries, by the way), your arguments are just that, unsubstantiated opinion.

And again you miss the point entirely. First, no-one argues that "there is no God"; rather atheists argue that there is no cogent reason to think that there is a god - a very different thing.

Second, no my arguments are not "unsubstantiated opinion" at all - they are coherent and robust points in logic. If you think the logic to be wrong, then counter-argue with logic that undoes them. Until you manage to do so though, I rest on the logic that undoes you and not on my opinions at all. 

No, it hasn't foxed me at all; if anything, I think it is an overused get-out clause that means folk like you feel that you don't have to engage in debate, research and study.

Have you any sense at all how foolish this makes you look? Anything? You can debate, research and study anything you like - when your basic premise rests on a logical fallacy though that's not a "get out clause", it's the unravelling of your position.

There may or may not be good reasons for believing in "god" - what's unequivocally not a good reason for doing so though is your endlessly repeated mistake of "you can't disprove it". 

You really, really need to think about this for a bit before returning here only to fall of a cliff of your own making again.

Really.

[Gordon]

Neither people here, or anywhere else have managed to demolish the argument, bhs, so I can understand why you feel unable to do so yourself.

You don't have a sound argument Hope - fallacious arguments can simply be rejected, but you haven't quite grasped this.

There have been people in the UK casting doubt on the validity of the monarchy for 4 or 500years, bhs.  Yet we still have a monarchy in this country.  Why?  Because no-one has been able to provide evidence that any other system is better.

Nope the argument here isn't about validity: the monarchy is valid in legal and constitutional terms. The debate is about its fitness for purpose and whether it is morally acceptable in democratic terms.

You can argue that there is no god, but until you can show that any alternative understanding is any more valid (something that people have been trying to do for centuries, by the way), your arguments are just that, unsubstantiated opinion.

I'm not arguing there in no God: I'm arguing that the arguments support the claim of 'God' are fallacious and can therefore be dismissed: not the same thing.

No, it hasn't foxed me at all; if anything, I think it is an overused get-out clause that means folk like you feel that you don't have to engage in debate, research and study.

It has you know!

[Khatru]

Khatru, whilst the drink-drive legislation is aimed at everyone, it only impacts those who drink and drive.  Similarly, the requirement for teachers and doctors in the UK to register with their respective General Teaching/Medical Council applies to the teaching/medical professions alone but is a national law which technically applies to everyone. 

The same applies to the teachings in the epistles.  The epistles were written to Christians in various churches across the Mediterranean area, and deal with issues that concerned the members of those churches.  The fact that the foundation on which Christianity exists is open to the whole of humanity means that - once someone joins 'church' - they come under the 'rules and regs' of that body in exactly the same way that anyone joining this board will not have been required to abide by the board's rules and regs before joining, but will be after joining. 

There is no contradiction, unless you are suggesting that we are all bound by every rule and reg that exists, even if we aren't involved in the life of many of the organisations/societies/nations/people groups to which each of them apply.

OK, so you're saying that the various letters in the NT don't apply to anyone now as they were written to certain people who were around at a particular time?