Ethics (I don't understand the Bible)

[amy]

Bible:

While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

How could this be the right thing to do in any way?

The only ethical argument I can see from Jesus' standpoint is that he does not want to have the woman who gave him so much feel bad because of the mean people, but that's kind of weak imo, especially for Jesus.

[Belial]

Chapter and Verse? It would be very helpful in answering your question.

[amy]

Mark 14:3-9, if I did the notation right

[Kreutz]

Bible:

While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

How could this be the right thing to do in any way?

The only ethical argument I can see from Jesus' standpoint is that he does not want to have the woman who gave him so much feel bad because of the mean people, but that's kind of weak imo, especially for Jesus.

What Jesus is saying is, don't slag on the girl for doing a good work. It would be scolding someone for buying a homeless person $100 worth of food and clothing, as opposed to donating that money to charity. Like Jesus says, she could always sell that perfume for the money to give to the poor, but she's comforting Him before he has to go through the crucifixion. That's also a good work, and that's why Jesus tells the others to lay off.

I guess what I'm saying is, you're trying to over-apply ethics to the situation.

[amy]

that makes a lot of sense. *ducks*

When I read it first I was thinking that the woman is who you should watch, instead of Jesus.

[Kreutz]

that makes a lot of sense. *ducks*

When I read it first I was thinking that the woman is who we should learn from, instead of Jesus.

In a way, we should learn from her. I'll stop short of giving a sermon here, but there's all kinds of lessons on faith and selflessness I could take from that verse and others. I also like the guy who told Jesus not to come all the way to his house to heal his master, on account of the fact that the man who was asking was a leader of men, and he didn't want to order Jesus like he would his own followers.

[Gundampilotspaz]

"You still don't understand," the Gray Voice droned on. "There is no time, there is no space. What was, is, and ever shall be. You are you, playing chess with yourself, and again you have checkmated yourself. You are the referee. Morals are your agreement with yourself to abide by your own rules. To thine own self be true or you spoil the game."

"Crazy."

"Than vary the rules and play a different game. You cannot exhaust her infinite variety."

"If you would just let me look at your face," Lazarus muttered pettishly.

"Try a mirror."

- Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

[Kreutz]

Y'know, I'm pretty tolerant about you guys making threads shitting on my religion, but I don't waltz into your threads about Odinism and Paganism and start quoting scripture, so I'd really appreciate it if you'd not inject atheist rhetoric into a serious discussion on Christianity like this.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Y'know, I'm pretty tolerant about you guys making threads shitting on my religion, but I don't waltz into your threads about Odinism and Paganism and start quoting scripture, so I'd really appreciate it if you'd not inject atheist rhetoric into a serious discussion on Christianity like this.

It's not our fault you're a christian.

It's not our fault that you are offended.

Don't blame your problems on us, k.

[Reinas]

It's not our fault you're a christian.

It's not our fault that you are offended.

Don't blame your problems on us, k.

It's not our fault you're an atheist.

It's not our fault you can't accept different religions.

Don't blame your inability to convert everyone from Christianity on us, k.

GPS, seriously can it. Amy asked a question. Kreutz answered it. This thread's about Christianity. If you want to take a shot at it, go the 'Muslims are more bloodthirsty than Christians' thread.

[Gundampilotspaz]

It's not our fault you're an atheist.

It's not our fault you can't accept different religions.

Don't blame your inability to convert everyone from Christianity on us, k.

GPS, seriously can it. Amy asked a question. Kreutz answered it. This thread's about Christianity. If you want to take a shot at it, go the 'Muslims are more bloodthirsty than Christians' thread.

This thread is about Ethics, specificly Ethics that come from the Bible. I posted a different interpratations of "Ethics" and was attacked because of that by someone who believes that I was out to condem his religion. I just gave him what he expected.

I saw no reason why my comment was out of place, as it was on topic. If we make a topic about Ethics and just talk about the bible... well that really isn't the kind of thread I'd expect to find on this website. Of course if you wish to put a cross in the banner and rename our site "Accelerated-Devolution" perhaps it'd fit.

[Reinas]

This thread is about Ethics, specificly Ethics that come from the Bible. I posted a different interpratations of "Ethics" and was attacked because of that by someone who believes that I was out to condem his religion. I just gave him what he expected.

I saw no reason why my comment was out of place, as it was on topic. If we make a topic about Ethics and just talk about the bible... well that really isn't the kind of thread I'd expect to find on this website. Of course if you wish to put a cross in the banner and rename our site "Accelerated-Devolution" perhaps it'd fit.

We should put a cross on the banner. Because talking about the bible, which was written long before Heinlen's book, is ancient and such we're devolving this discussion.

Or, you can accept the fact that not all discussions have to be "devolved" so it holds a civil explanation of ethics in the bible. Not every topic has to be turned into a Christinity vs. Aethist war. Previous posts of yours clearly supports Kreutz's "belief" that you're out to condemn Christianity.

Quite a hypocrite, then are you? Did you really think he expected a backlash in this thread? What about you then in the, 'Muslims are more bloodthirsty than Christians' thread? With a title like that, you didn't really expect kind words from SD. Yet, you were worked up and somewhat offended. Though you had the "right" to.

But in this thread, Kreutz isn't allowed. Because then we'd have to rename, "Accelerated-Devolution."

[Gundampilotspaz]

Quite a hypocrite, then are you? Did you really think he expected a backlash in this thread? What about you then in the, 'Muslims are more bloodthirsty than Christians' thread?

You have the issue refersed, the title of the thread is "Christians are more blood thirsty than Muslims!", which stated in RT by SD which I moved by started that thread when he choose to ignore the historical crimes of the christians.

My views on religion, I've made quite clear. However, my frist post was not about Christianity, it was about Ethics and morals. The title of this thread.

So if you wish to blame me for something not started by me, go right ahead. It really isn't going to make a difference to me what you thought I ment by posting an opposing view on Morals. As long as he read them, and thought about them, I don't care what you thought the purpose was.

[Reinas]

You have the issue refersed, the title of the thread is "Christians are more blood thirsty than Muslims!", which stated in RT by SD which I moved by started that thread when he choose to ignore the historical crimes of the christians.

My views on religion, I've made quite clear. However, my frist post was not about Christianity, it was about Ethics and morals. The title of this thread.

So if you wish to blame me for something not started by me, go right ahead. It really isn't going to make a difference to me what you thought I ment by posting an opposing view on Morals. As long as he read them, and thought about them, I don't care what you thought the purpose was.

The title reversed, my bad. SD might have ignored the historical crimes of Christians, but you ignored the historical crimes of Islam as well.

That's right GPS, you don't start anything. Everyone else starts picking on you about something. You just go with the flow. You just swoop in and say what needs to be said because everyone should expect what you're about to say. So expect this next time GPS: offensive posts lead to defensive posts.

[Gundampilotspaz]

That's right GPS, you don't start anything. Everyone else starts picking on you about something. You just go with the flow. You just swoop in and say what needs to be said because everyone should expect what you're about to say. So expect this next time GPS: offensive posts lead to defensive posts.

I don't know what kind of battle your are fighting, I don't know what you are trying to prove.

I maintain I said nothing offensive in this thread until I was attacked. If you are too narrow minded to see that, you need some serious help.

Dispite that fact, one thing you must fail to understand is that Religion offends me just as much as agnosticism offends you. Because of this we can never convince each other of anything. I will never convince you that religion is t complete bullshit, and you will never make me see the "valuable" aspects to your anti-social hobbie.

However, for the sake of staying on topic I will reply to the first post.

Bible:

While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, "Why this waste of perfume? It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor." And they rebuked her harshly.

"Leave her alone," said Jesus. "Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

How could this be the right thing to do in any way?

The only ethical argument I can see from Jesus' standpoint is that he does not want to have the woman who gave him so much feel bad because of the mean people, but that's kind of weak imo, especially for Jesus.

I don't get the importance of this story, other than to say: "Don't be hard on people who try, but ultimately fail."

I don't think the story makes any sense. Perhaps parts were omitted but:

- Who is this woman who can afford such expensive perfume?

- Why just dump it on his head? That seems kind of rude to me.

- Is there an assumed buyer for this Perfume willing to pay a years wages?

- Did she pay a years wages for the Perfume just to dump it on jesus' head?

- Wouldn't a better message be NOT to pay so much for luxury but to instead give it to the poor right out? Why does the question of selling it come into play, why don't they ask: "Why did you pay so much for this instead of giving that money to the poor?"

- The above reason implies that she stole it, which in itself is a commandment and "morally" wrong.

- She could manufactor the Perfume herself, in which case one bottle would mean nothing and she could say "For this one bottle I dumped on our God's head, I'll sell two and donate that money to the poor." She doesn't rebut them, but just takes their abuse. That imples to me, theft.

I really didn't want to get into a debate about religion in this thread, if you wish to combat me go ahead. If you wish to drop it, drop it and I will think no less of you. I just wanted to get my say on ETHICS, and move on. If you don't like it, fuck you don't read it and go back to your "God".

[No Sad Endings]

I hate to say it but for once GPS is right. The thread's not about Christianity. It's about ethics. Amy's not a christian either, and she started the thread, so I don't see how he's butting in on anything. She asked a question about a verse in the bible. I don't see how yet another HEINLEIN!!! quote was really relevant to her particular question, but GPS didn't come in here trying to insult Christians or anything. He can't, since it was Amy's question and Amy's not a Christian.

If someone Christian had started the thread wanting to have a discussion about Christianity it might be a little different, but then again, doing that on a board full of mostly agnostics and atheists would be inviting disagreement to begin with, and it'd be foolish to do it if you didn't want people to disagree with you, so I think I just contradicted myself.

As for Amy's question, I think Kreutz summed it up pretty well. I think Jesus was simply trying to say, "Hey, she did a good, nice thing. You can't go comparing good, nice things and saying someone should have done this other thing instead, because it's pointless, there will always be other things you could have done instead."

[Gundampilotspaz]

I hate to say it but for once GPS is right.

How could you hate to say that! What kind of friend are you!

And for once! I'm right at LEAST two or three times a week!

I don't see how yet another HEINLEIN!!! quote was really relevant to her particular question, but GPS didn't come in here trying to insult Christians or anything. He can't, since it was Amy's question and Amy's not a Christian.

Because it was a different view on morals and ethics?

Besides, Heinlein is far more devine than Jesus.

[Reinas]

I don't know what kind of battle your are fighting, I don't know what you are trying to prove.

I maintain I said nothing offensive in this thread until I was attacked. If you are too narrow minded to see that, you need some serious help.

Were you attacked by Kreutz, or was he merely asking you not to interject aethiest rhetoric in this thread?

Dispite that fact, one thing you must fail to understand is that Religion offends me just as much as agnosticism offends you. Because of this we can never convince each other of anything. I will never convince you that religion is t complete bullshit, and you will never make me see the "valuable" aspects to your anti-social hobbie.

And one thing you fail to understand is that agnosticism does not offend me. You assume that just because I'm not agreeing with you, I'm immeadiately anti-aethiest. Your narrow mind assumes that I'm trying to make you see the light. If that was my intent, I would've done so already.

I really didn't want to get into a debate about religion in this thread, if you wish to combat me go ahead. If you wish to drop it, drop it and I will think no less of you. I just wanted to get my say on ETHICS, and move on. If you don't like it, fuck you don't read it and go back to your "God".

Oh my, I should just drop it then, because I would never want you to think less of me or anyone else to disagree with me. You only wanted to get your say on ethics. yet you had to come back and say this:

It's not our fault you're a christian.

It's not our fault that you are offended.

Don't blame your problems on us, k.

Oh wait...this has nothing to do with ETHICS. I thought you were moving on. Move along, move along, like I know you do.

'Fuck you' doesn't really display your intelligence. But I'd have to decline your offer and go back to my "God." Funny though, I never really left.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Were you attacked by Kreutz, or was he merely asking you not to interject aethiest rhetoric in this thread?

Any opinion other than the bible is obsolute is aethiest rhetoric? Wow! I just can't believe that someone is saying that to me. This needs to sink in for a while.

And one thing you fail to understand is that agnosticism does not offend me. You assume that just because I'm not agreeing with you, I'm immeadiately anti-aethiest. Your narrow mind assumes that I'm trying to make you see the light. If that was my intent, I would've done so already.

Oh my, I should just drop it then, because I would never want you to think less of me or anyone else to disagree with me. You only wanted to get your say on ethics. yet you had to come back and say this:

Oh wait...this has nothing to do with ETHICS. I thought you were moving on. Move along, move along, like I know you do.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

'Fuck you' doesn't really display your intelligence. But I'd have to decline your offer and go back to my "God." Funny though, I never really left.

That is too bad. There is always time, however.

[Crube]

How could you hate to say that! What kind of friend are you!

And for once! I'm right at LEAST two or three times a week!

Because it was a different view on morals and ethics?

Besides, Heinlein is far more devine than Jesus.

Are you trying to say Heinlein is a better Texas town than Jesus?

[Gundampilotspaz]

Are you trying to say Heinlein is a better Texas town than Jesus?

You may interprete my words how you see fit. You have literary freedom.

[Reinas]

Any opinion other than the bible is obsolute is aethiest rhetoric? Wow! I just can't believe that someone is saying that to me. This needs to sink in for a while.

Don't tell me you don't realize that anything you say usually has aethiest rhetoric. Maybe you should take a sabbatical in order to realize who you really are.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

That is too bad. There is always time, however.

That is too bad. There's always time for you to drop it. I won't think less of you.

[Crube]

You may interprete my words how you see fit. You have literary freedom.

Learn how to spell "divine!" Plus, just because you don't like someones religion, doesn't mean it is wrong for them!

[Gundampilotspaz]

That is too bad. There's always time for you to drop it. I won't think less of you.

I have nothing to drop, for a dropped it a long time ago. Seven years ago, in fact.

I believe I'm far better off for it.

Learn how to spell "divine!" Plus, just because you don't like someones religion, doesn't mean it is wrong for them!

My view on religion is simple: "Less is more". I'm against the idea of organized religion on a moral and ethical level. The world would be a much better place if we all woke up and started to live in the real world.

I have two prejudice's; people whom have strong religous faith, and vegitarians.

[Crube]

I have nothing to drop, for a dropped it a long time ago. Seven years ago, in fact.

I believe I'm far better off for it.

My view on religion is simple: "Less is more". I'm against the idea of organized religion on a moral and ethical level. The world would be a much better place if we all woke up and started to live in the real world.

I have two prejudice's; people whom have strong religous faith, and vegitarians.

Oh for the lo... KHHAANNN! AAAAAAAAAAGGGG! Man, you are really annoying when it comes down to this. It is as if you didn't read the disclaimer notice when you watched "Dogma" a lot of times. Seriously, you are making yourself look just as bad as "those people with strong religous faith" by cramming down your view on religion on others. Ironic huh?