Do Christians Worship Different Gods?

Why is there any need for us to long or love it to be true that we have meaning, when all we have to do is take God's word for it ? In multiple places we are told in the Bible of the purpose of His will or of His eternal purpose.And we have a model to look at - Jesus Christ. We can see what is on the heart of God. That is to be thoroughly united and one with His creature - human being.We have His word and we have a Model - the God-man Jesus Christ. So we know what God is after and what He will eventually obtain in those saved - the mingling of divinity with humanity - the incorporation of God and man in oneness. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

The past tense "was" suggests that the God-Man is no longer with us. You have to speak for yourself. Perhaps you have no experience of Christ. But millions of believers do. And more continue to enter into the experience. We enjoy the dispensing of Christ's Spirit into our innermost beings. " ... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) You say "was" but Christ ends His ministry in the book of Matthew with the words that He is with us until the consummation of the age: "And behold, I am with you all the days until the comsummation of the age" (Matt. 28:20b) He is still with us and His indwelling presence is only "worthless" in furthering and building up the fallen Satanified world. But for the building of His church and the kingdom of God the God-Man is precious. Nothing can compare with Christ. And nothing can compete with Christ in value and worth.So if you feel worthless as a human being and of no value, you should speak for yourself. We who know Christ and are having His life dispensed into us feel nothing can separate us from the love of God.And nothing can either defeat or supercede the value of the eternal will of God. " Because all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father but is of the world.

​

And the world is passing away, and its lust, but he who does the will of God abides forever." (1 John 2:15,16) So if you want the encredible assurance and comfort that you are living unto that which abides forever, receive Christ and His salvation. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

t (erased)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This is a selective reply on a portion of discussion. Sorry if I didn't follow the whole context.Granny says: It is very difficult to suggest the New Testament supports the slavery of the kind my forebearers were of (being African American).Paul wrote that kidnapping was an unrighteous act. And Paul mentions it along with fornicators, homosexuals, liars, perjurers and murderers - "But we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully [And] knows this, that the law is not enacted for a righteous man but for the lawless and unruly, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who -

​

strike their fathers and those who strike their mothers,
for fornicators,
homosexuals,
** KIDNAPPERS **, (my emphasis)
liars,
perjurers,
and whatever other thing that is opposed to the healthy teachins, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, with which I was entrusted." (1 Timothy 1:8-11) How then can I say that millions of kidnapped human beings stolen from their homeland and forced into slavery is God's will ? Rather the law is enacted for such lawless ones. And it is contrary to the blessed gospel entrusted to the apostle.Don't listen to the foolishness of those hoping to score points against the Bible by saying it does not speak against slavery. It spoke here explicitly against "kidnappers" as such as was involved in the Atlantic Slave Trade. As per above one could hardly charge that there was an omission.However, we do have Paul giving intructions to the churches. People came to the Lord Jesus in all kinds of situations. And some would find themselves believing in the Gospel as masters of slaves or as slaves themselves. What was the apostles word to these?Well one place he tells the masters to give to the slaves what is just and equal: "Masters, grant to your slaves that which is just and equal, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven." (Col. 3:4)There are many kinds of slavery and indentured servitude. But the hieneous slavery of which I am most familiar in the history of my country, is the kind that envolves kidnapping, fornication, and certainly NOT giving slaves what is just and equal by any means. Inequality is the foundation for the Slavery of which I am most familiar.I once read that in ancient Rome the city slave had some legal rights to sometime even take his master to court. But the country slave was less fortunate as evidenced by the intruments of torture.Probably slavery in ancient Rome is a big subject. But Paul knew that the Gospel would reach some slaves who would believe and some masters who also would believe. Together they would be participating in the New Testament church life.His instructions were not to society as a whole so as to seem to be a social reformer. But to the communities which were churches he gave instruction. Some are eager to point out that Paul said: "Slaves, obey in all things those who are your masters according to the flesh, not with eue-service as men-pleasers, but in singlenessof heart fearing the Lord." (Col. 3:22) These kinds of passages slaver owners in the US loved to support their kidnapping and fornication. But the abolishonist also could point to passages arguing against them.In the same letter Paul warns, the CHRISTIANS, that God is not repector of persons. And thought they are eternally redeemed they still may be RECOMPENSED good or bad in some coming age quite aside from eternal life: "Whatever you do, wok from the soul as to the Lord and not to men, Knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as recompense. You serve the Lord Christ ..." (v.24)But hold on slave and slave master. It says this: "For he who does unrighteously will receive what he unrightely did, and there is no respect of persons." (v.25) Some believers came to the Christ in the institution of slavery.
Some believers came to Christ as masters in the same institution.Paul says that God is no respector of persons. Either slave or master is called to the inheritance as a recompense. But God will cause one to receive good for the good he has done and to receive unrighteously for the unrighteosness he has done.This is an exhortation to Christian disciples. God has many ways to deal with His saved people aside from the matter of eternal redemption. He is not tied to not further deal with His children for their perfecting, adjusting, discipline, and even punishment.Slave and slave master - "For he who does unrighteosly will receive what he unrighteosly did, AND THERE IS NO RESPECT OF PERSONS." ( Col. 3:25) So we have to say "Hold it. Not so fast" to those who gleefully claim that the Bible endorses slavery. And I think the abolishonist won the battle eventually over the consciences of men, albiet some slavers thought they had a case for a divinely approved slave trade. Paul's exhortation were not bandaids to put on a sick society. His epistle is to the Christian church. Kidnapping is unrighteous. Using female slaves for fornication is also not to be tolerated in the Christian church.The church is the city on a hill. The church is to be the lampstand testifying the kingdom of God. No, Paul was not a social reformer putting bandaids on human society. His burden is Christ and the church centric. For the building up of these communities called churches (not physical buildings but collective entities as communities) he touched the conscieces of all involved.And the Holy Spirit reserved one whole letter in the NT to deal with a Christian brother who was apparently a runaway slave of a Christian brother who was a master. It is quite interesting.But it is still CHRIST centric and not social reform centric. Its focus is the building up of the church. Its focus is not helping a Christless society get along apart from abiding in the resurrected and living Christ.Jesus said that the disciples were the salt of the earth. Salt only preserves the meat from totally rotting. The presence of the Christians on the earth only hold in check the complete rotting of society. We are the light of the world and the salt of the earth if we are normal disciples of Jesus (Matt. 5:13,1).I said if we are normal disciples.

What I find truly nauseating is that you would be so filled with an anti Christian bigotry that you couldn't recognize the objective facts of history. The Methodist, Quakers, and Mennonites were Christian groups which strongly opposed slavery.I am quite thankful that one of the things they did was a more reasonable exposition of the 9th chapter of Genesis to debunk the curse of the black man myth surrounding Noah's words about his three sons.It is nauseating that your prejudice could so clouds your objectivity about history in the West. Paul never wrote "God hates fags!" You're over reacting to the epistle.He didn't really rank these sins. He was not occupied with ranking them from better to worse. He simply mentions a list of sinful lifestyles and concludes with - "and whatever other thing that is opposed to the healthy teaching according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God ..." (1 Tim. 1:10)Paul does not draw our attention to "how bad" something is. He draws attention to "whatever" is opposed to the "healthy teaching" of the gospel. And as always Paul is "Christ centered" and not "sin centered". Man's revulsion is little use. But to turn away from focusing on the sin, on any sin, and focusing instead on Jesus Christ, is his remedy. The reaction of yours could be the result of a moral decline which you are accustomed to. If one remains in a room full of people chewing garlic eventually the smell may not bother them at all.Perhaps the downward moral slide of society lead to your being appalled at the mention of homosexuals, perjurers, liars, murders, etc. today. Latter on someone else may be incensed that striking a father or mother is mentioned. Then latter someone else cannot believe that fornicators or perjurers are mentioned.Since I have been alive I have noticed a encrease in the insensativity to, for example, pornagrahy in the public media in my country. What was X-rated material years ago is now prime time entertainment.Your outrage could be a result of your being brought into an insensative stupor in the downward current of morality. I didn't say kidnapping and slavery were synonomous. I mean that without kidnapping the Atlantic slave trade could probably not have flourished as it did.So if the New Testament enumerated kidnapping as sin (quoting actually the Old Testament) the slave trade as we usually know it, is cut off at its roots.It may be helpful to see where Paul was refering to in the Old Testament about kidnapping: "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) "If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you." (Deut. 24:7) So southern slave sympathizing theologians had to do quite a bit of Bible twisting to teach that the Confederate states were in God's will to have slaves. That is right. And there were indentured servants and people who sold themselves into slavery.I think if you be somewhat objective about history you will recognize that the Christian faith had much to do with abolition.
Starting from the truth that all men are created in the image of God, the wind was quickly taken out of the sails of slavery theology. I got to know that already a while ago. Since skeptics like yourself cautioned be as a young Christian that by being a disciple of Jesus I was pro-slavery, it behooved me to read some history of slavery from Will Durant's history on Rome. Perhaps, some forms of indentured servitude slavery are not so condemned in that particular passage.But most skeptics of the Christian faith I encounter, just use "slavery" as a content heavy word in its most heinous antibellum conotation. I think they feel that that charge yields the maximum punch against the Gospel of Christ. If we condemn slavery and fail to live Christ, it is of no use to the kingdom of God. Paul is Christ centered and his focus is on turning our beings over to Christ's indwelling, imparting, and Lordship.A "man of God" is not simply a good man condemning this and that social practice. He is a man saturated with and permeated with the Spirit of Christ for the building up of communities called "churches".Covetousness, kidnapping, living for mammon, elicit sex with slaves, oppression are sins which separate men from God and from one another. These damage man and are a hindrance to the building up of the kingdom of God.Paul's exhortations are "Christ and the church" centric. You do not find the apostle protesting before Ceasar's palace for the sake of making Rome a better place. His focus is to establish churches as communities to serve as a testimony of God's government from WITHIN the citizens of His kingdom.Of course, at His second coming, the remaining nations will be ruled outwardly by this King. And I have no doubt that mammon iself will be over ruled let alone slavery in all its forms.In the mean time the churches are places in which the highest level of morality on earth should be testified to in those who are ruled by Christ inwardly. Granting to your slave what is just and equal really puts a damper on the practice.The nature of Christ's indwelling is that He grows deeper and deeper. And the sense of just what is "just and equal" would also grow with the growth of conscience and conviction. Paul trusted the conviction of the Holy Spirit within the disciples.That is why in the letter to Philemon you see the apostle holding the slave master accountable to his Christian conscience. Rather than handing down decrees in a legal way, he turns Philemon to his Christ touched conscience with a confidence that Philemon will have to surrender his opinion about the affair to the will of the Spirit of Christ Who dwells in his heart. In preaching the Gospel Paul knew that all kinds of people were going to become Christians. Some would be in divorce. Some would be slave masters. Some would be slaves. Some may be employers. Others employees. Some would be soldiers, prisoners, prostitutes, homosexuals, and in various walks of like.He intention is not that they would center their attention on their sins but on Christ. This is hard for some people to understand. "The wrath of man does not work the righteousness of God".Man needs regeneration. Man needs to be born of God and to receive Christ the Lord within. So instead of focusing on the situation that they may find themselves in when they come to Christ, he focuses more on Christ Himself.Usually the message was to come to Christ just as you are. It was a given that sanctification and transformation, conformation and building up would change many things eventually about the way they live.He is a kingdom of God builder and not a social activist in the sense that you expect him to be. Perhaps as a humanist someone would not care a bit about the building of the kingdom of God. They would care only for bandaids placed on man's corrupted society to "make the world a better place".You are annoyed with the apostle, perhaps, because he doesn't sound like someone seeking to "make the world a better place" without God. Perhaps you think Paul should come with a 12 step program to reform many social ills.The apostles priorities go beyond what the humanist expects. His interest is the people be swallowed up in the divine life of Christ for the building of the kingdom of God.And that would go not only for slavery but for ALL of the other ills he mentions. He is not a social reformer. He is a church builder for the growth of God in human beings. "For we [apostles] are God's fellow workers; you are God's cultivated land (farm), God's building." (1 Cor. 3:9) He is building God into people. He is building people into God. Only in your accusing mind because he does not sound to you like a social activist.He gives exhortation to remember those who are in prison as if in prison with them. Would you use this as a rational that he supports all aspects of the Roman penal system ? As a Jew witnessing the tyranny of the Roman Empire over his beloved homeland, I don't think Paul was insensative to social oppression of any type. It is easy to isolate a passage and "love" it in some perverted sense. But the whole tenor of the New Testament is what the disciples should be concerned with.You seem to be very fond of Col. 3:22 also for you own purposes.As lover of God I have to not only know what the Scripture says. I have to know "again it is written" also. I have to know what the Bible says and what the Bible ALSO says.And that passage ALSO says " For he [slave or master] who does unrighteously will receive what he unrighteously did, AND THERE IS NO RESPECT OF PERSONS." (v.25, my emphasis) So as a serious follower of Christ and student of the Scripture, what is written is important. But what also is written is important as well. "Then the devil took Him into the holy city and set Him on the wing of the temple, and said to Him,

​

If You are the Son of God, cast Yourself down; for it is written, "To His angels He shall give charge concerning You, and on their hands they shall bear You up, lest You strike Your foot against a stone."

​

Jesus said to him, Again, it is written, "You shall not test the Lord your God." ( Matt. 4:5-7) Again it was written: 1 Corinthians 7:21 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble youalthough if you can gain your freedom, do so. Paul the Apostle We may argue over interpretation. However, history tells us that the New Testament and the Christian Gospel had an intergral part in the abolition of slavery.So it seems that at least the pro-slavery interpreters did not win out in the end. Do you wish they did ? Pro- live Christ is even more clear. We should receive Christ Who is living and available. We should consider that we are bought by Him and live unto Him.If we do the expression that will come out will be the highest level of morality on the earth. How do you feel about First Corinthians 7:23 ? "You were bought with a price, do not become slaves of men." Is that also a clear pro-slavery passage from Paul ? The church of Christ is glorious. And I am so glad I am a part of it. It is comforting to know that I am on the victorious side of the Victor.I encourage you to turn and believe into the Lord and join us:Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Well, I don't see GDR case that the God of the Old Testament is a different Lord or different God at all. I have read through that OP more than once.Statements like God is not merciful in the Old Testament just don't make sense to me. Or statements that God only hates His enemies in the OT don't make too much sense to me.I wonder if GDR has read the OT in detail. How can I say that the book of Jonah shows God eager to punish His enemies ? The whole book is dedicated to God's reluctance to punish a sinning nation, to the prophet Jonah's dismay.Now I do recognize that the revelation of God is progressive and gradually unfolding in the Bible. And it makes sense that in the order of books the Gospel of Luke does not immediately follow the book of Genesis or Exodus.A long history of God's enteraction with Israel and the world is covered in the 39 OT books. God's hatred for sin is established in order for the backround to be set for the new covenant. Without seeing His hatred for sin we would not realize how great His love was to make His Son sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God.The hatred for sin displayed in the Old Testament accumulates upon the cross of Christ to accomplish a great redemption for all mankind.Would it make sense for the Gospel of Mark to immediately follow the book of Leviticus ?There are about 150 Psalms. Does GDR find no mercy, forgiveness, longsuffering, patience, kindness and pardon in ANY of those 150 Psalms ? That would be really unusual.So I don't see at all a "different" God in the Old Testament. I do recognize a progressive revelation of God over 1600 years in the 66 books of the Bible.

Hi GDR,I knew that some things I wrote would have to be corrected because the OP was long. And I was writing from a somehwat incomplete recollection without having the paragraphs right before me. Sorry. I understand. But you know even in the Old Testament we do get hints of the latter NT "but I say to you" atttude of Jesus. For instance I think the OT saints are brought close to this latter compasion when God tells them not to gloat when their enemy falls: Proverbs 24:17 - Do not rejoice [or gloat] when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart exult when he is overthrown; Lest Jehovah see it, and it displeases Him, and He turns away His anger from him." Here we do see God checking the heart and attitude of His people toward their enemies. Is thier rejoicing a selfish cruel sinful attitude ? God will be displeased and lighten up His own anger toward that enemy. So be careful !It may not be "Love your enemies". But it comes close to it. Do you agree ?The Hebrew kings had a reputation of being merciful ? There must be some reason for this: 1 Kings 20:31 -"And his [Ben-hadad] said to him, Look, we have heard that the kings of the house of Israel are merciful kings. We beg you, let us put sackcloth on our loins and ropes upon our hears, and go out to the king of Israel. Perhaps he will preserve your life." While I fully acknowledge the complete slaughter of some societies at the command of Jehovah I have to with that also consider their alledged mercifulness. The spectrum of how they dealt with their enemies must have been a wide one.When extermination was appropriate there was no mercy. When conquest was tempered with mercy, they apparently gained a reputation for that also.With "not rejoicing" over the fall of Israel's enemies and their reputation for being merciful kings, there is also the apparent objectivity of Jehovah about the righteousness which He demands to be practiced in the land.I mean He seemed no respector of persons. The treatment the Canaanites got for defiling the land was also the treatment Israel got for defiling it as well. So then the "enemy" was really the enemy of God and His will for righteousness to be carried out on His land: Leviticus 18:27 - "Do not defile yourselves in any of these things, for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have defiled themselves.

​

Because the land has become defiled, I visited its iniquity upon it, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. You therefore shall keep My statutes, and shall not do any of these abominations, [neither] the native nor the sojourner who sojourns among you (For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled.)

​

That the land does not vomit you out when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation which was before you." There's the warning to His people. Now what actually happened ? Did they fair better then their enemies in this matter in a preferencial way? I don't think so. And I think that is a major shocking point in the Old Testament: 2 Kings 21:12 - 15 - "Therefore this says Jehovah the God of Israel, I am now bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah that both ears of everyone who hears of it will tingle.

​

... I will wipe Jerusalem as one wipes a pan, wiping it and turning it upside down. And I will forsake the remnant of My inheritance and deliver them into the hand of thier enemies, and they will become plunder and spoil to all their enemies; because they have done what is evil in My sight and have provoke Me to anger since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt to this day." It is hard to imagine the relationship of Israel and their enemies in the expected sense of thier God's petty preferencial friendship. What happened to the sinful societies of the good land exactly happened to His own people, via His warning.There is something different about this "national " deity from all the other gods of the nations. And the "enemy" seems to be the enemy of His law and righteousness. I believe that God does the right thing at the right time and in the right way, always.The spectrum of God's dealing with people is the OT is wide. Your word is "inconsistent". I think I see appropriate treatment according to what God deemed the case should be.But I would hasten to concede that I am not always told ALL of the surrounding facts. It becomes for me sometimes just a matter of trust. At any rate the Psalmist says repeatedly that God's "loving kindness is forever" in Psalm 136.In other words this inspired praise was that His mercy was really consistent. It must mean that from the viewpoint of eternity, God's loving kindness and mercy, overall, were consistent.But I would admit that this for me is a matter of trust. It is not always easy to see this consistency from my temporal earthly viewpoint. Many times it is, ie. the book of Jonah. At other times it is not too obvious. I was in error and probably misquoted you. Sorry. I think that as God is progressively revealing His nature in the OT He is also allowing His people to voice THEIR human sentiments.It is absolutely right that David's attitude towards David's enemies is often quite typical of fallen man. The psalms have utternances in them which are not like the teaching of Jesus to love one's enemies.I think that in the gradual infolding of the divine heart you have God allowing quite raw, unchecked, and spiritually immature (by NT standards) utterances of His people from their own hearts.Case in point - Psalm 137 when the Psalmist is longing for revenge on the punishing Babylnians - " O daughter of Babylon, who are to be devastated, Happy will he be who repays you the recompense of what you have rendered to us. Happy will he be who seizes your little ones and dashes them against the rock." (v. 8,9) That is cruel. But it is also realistic as to how that Jew must have felt about the matter at that time. This may be a finer point about what is really "inspired" in the Bible. Ie. what is taught as opposed to what is recorded as being said.Sometimes the human crying out for the national enemy to really get his due, is unquestionably present in the OT scripture. Yes.And some of this ruthless dealing with the Canaanites without mercy, turns around to ourselves and becomes meaningful. The "good land" is Christ. And to conquer this good land of Christ sometimes we simply must show no mercy to self loved sins which call for self pity and to be spared the operation of His cross.Now I count this to be a ruthlessness mostly towards one's own self. We hate the sin in OURSELVES first, as Christ's Spirit seeks to spread, invade, and conquer our soul.The teaching of the kingdom of the heavens in Matthew is to be strict towards one's self and merciful toward others. Towards ourselves the Christians should be exacting and firm. Towards the other he should be accomadating and merciful.So that is why the teachings to not judge. That is why the teaching that as we judge we shall ourselves be judged. The natural tendency is for man to be strict and exacting towards others and mericiful and accomodating towards ourselves. The Lord's teaching in Matthew reverses this.The kingdom people have to deal strictly and completely with thier own sins. They must be merciful and longsuffering towards the sinfulness of others.This does not mean "tolarantly" allowing the church to be destroyed from within by sinful believers. But it does mean leading by example - strict towards one's self - longsuffering towards the other brother (not judging). I respond by realizing that I will certainly have to give an account for my Christian life before the Lord for reward or punishment. This is at the judgment seat of Christ before the millennium.Though the question of eternal redemption has been solved for me forever, the question of my position in the coming millennial kingdom is still open.We Christians must be conformed to the image of Christ. Having received Him as the seed of divine life we have to allow Him to grow and transform our souls. How much we have allowed Him to permeate and transform our souls will be an issue before His judgment seat of Christians. We are not that different from the OT saints in some regards.
But as in that age, so also in the church age He gains some who overcome.This means throughout the church age God gains a remnant of those who rise to normality. They are not above the standard. They are simply at the standard. They are those who overcome - "overcomers".And these overcomers will be co kings with Him in His second coming. The reward for their prevailing in His grace to be conformed into His image, is to enter into the joy of His kingdship over the earth in the coming 1,000 year kingdom.The blessings of eternity are the common portion of all the believers. It is important to realize that all believers both of the OTdispensation and the NT dispensation eventually must be conformed to the image of Christ through His transforming operation in thier souls.This we can postpone. But we cannot put it off indefinitely.Thanks for the corrections and clarifications of your discussion there.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You'll have to do the homework yourself. I am not going to take the time to debate so evident a historical fact that abolitionists were immensly fueled by Christian theology.If you don't want to see it I won't waste time arguing here about it. Maybe I misunderstood you. I'll check that latter.I think I made a point that Christian theology appealed to by Christian and other expositors of the Bible played a large part in the abolotion of slavery, certainly in the US. And I think in Europe also. And you, stop trying to bolster the strength of your posts with potty mouth profanity. I understand you. You don't add impact with four letter words. The vicious nature of the racism of it pre-dates Christianity.It is a difficult passage. And it has never been totally clear to me what the writer intended.I am not sure whether the translation should be "younger son" or "youngest son" - "When Noah awoke from his wine and learned what his [youngest] or [younger] son had do to him ..." (Gen. 9:24) Youngest son, I am told, would be the youngest make descendent in the chapter. That would probably mean Canaan as the one who did something. The passage is a bit obscure to me and my position on it has not always been sure. It is not hate speech. I have family members who were in the gay movement. My younger brother died of HIV complications in the gay community in San Francisco. My life has not been untouched by the matter.And my conscience is fully clear that I am writing no "hate speech" in quoting and agreeing with the passage.There is no call there for lynch mobs or citizen vigilantism in case that is what you would like to accuse the apostle of instigating. He simply says that these enumerated errors, among others, are opposed to healthy teaching of the gospel of Christ. And my point still stands. That is perhaps your opinion based on accomodation to a declining moral society. Perhaps you are just driftng down stream with the current of rising rebellion and iniquity in society.I mean the tide of tolerance for homosexuality is becoming encreasingly strong. It is not surprising that you might be considered heroic to defend it.And at this point I repeat. Paul maybe understood to list fornication as a form of idolatry, a form of idol worship - "Put to death therefore your members which are on the earth" fornication, uncleaness, passion, evil desire, and greediness, which is idolatry." (Col. 3:5) I think his thought may be that greediness in sexual passion can become an idolatry which damages humanity and usurps the place of God in one's life.It may not be an easy matter. It only takes some Phd. to announce that people are born homosexual to incite the strongest passions to defend the gay lifestyle. But the problem I have with that is that we could also say the perjurer is born, the theif is born, the murderer is born as well.Basically, we are ALL born with certain tendencies. That could include homosexuality. No one had to teach me to steal. I quite naturally learned the dubious pleasures of stealing at a very young age.In a similar way, probably most of us were born with some inclination to want at some time some satisfaction of sexual passion through someone of our same sex. Sure, in a sense, I could argue that I TOO was born homosexual.I also was born a pick pocket, a fornicator, a covenant breaker, a peeping tom, a liar, and a perjurer too. Those seeds were in me from birth.There is such a thing as an arrested stage of development. In puberty some us of were infantuated with another boy if a boy. Maybe as a girl you went through a stage of being infatuated with another girl. It could be that the sin arrives in a arrested stage of development when one does not grow outgrow such a tendency.Anyway, you are welcomed to accuse me of being old fashion and not modern enough. You know sex with animals is being advertized on the YouTube in some quarters. Perhaps your children and mine will grow up in a world in which one is considered anti-modern because we consider it a perversion to seek sex with one's horse or sheep.What is much more important to me is that Jesus Christ loved us and gave Himself up for us, heterosexual or homosexual. And He is available to be our Lord and life, not by greeting our teeth to not do this, not do that, not do the other, but by allowing His Holy Spirit to fill our souls. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be led astray; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor effiminate nor homosexuals nor thieves nor the covetous, not drunkards, not revilers, not the rapacious will inherit the kingdom of God.

​

And these things were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justrified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:9-11) This passage also lists homosexuals. With fornicators, idolators, drunkards, thieves, etc. it says they will not inherit the kingdom of God.I do not take this passage to mean that homosexuals cannot be saved or redeemed, as the same with all the other transgressors mentioned. I do take it to mean that one has to be transformed and sanctified out of that state to express a Christ filled life in order to participate in the kingdom of God. And we cannot participate practically in God's kingdom as long as we are not transformed and sanctified from those lifestyles.There is no preferencial prejudice. As to the adulterer, so to the drunkard. As to the idolator so to the covetous man. as to the thief so to the homosexual.Since we are filled with weaknesses and so prone to sin, this should give us the incentive to dive into the Spirit of Christ with our whole heart. It should give us the incentive to realize that we cannot make it without Him living in us to be our all in all.Rather than to shut everyone OUT, the apostle is giving us the incentive to realize that only in living the Christ who is available and real, can we hope to be as God desires for His kingdom. I don't consider it a jovial matter. I consider the need to be saved from sins, ANY sins, to be a serious matter that only the Friend of Sinners - Jesus, can effect.If I did share the Gospel with a homosexual I would not advize him to resist on his or her own power the temptation to be a homosexual. I would not instruct them to center on their problem but only on loving Jesus Christ.If they said that they felt there was no problem with them, I would have confidence that if they continue to love Christ His transformation within would furnish them with the truth that they need.I say this based on my own experience with Christ. You know the sumbol of the Holy Spirit is a DOVE. That is a gentle creature. And my Savior is gentle in His liberating the sinner from all kinds of sins. He replaces our enjoyment of sinning with something better - that is the enjoyment of God as grace, life, and inward empowering. I am outrage when I see so-called Christains parade with signs reading "God hates fags".With Jesus I would say to them "You don't know with what spirit you speak".I am not outraged at Paul's matter of fact enumeration of theft along with idolatry, or his enumaration of drunkenness along with homosexuality.I recognize changing attitudes with developing societies. Sometimes this is for good. Sometimes this enfluenced also by Christian thought.And sometimes there are limits. If all the theives were to write laws of course stealing would be not against the law. If all the slave owners were to write the laws, of course slavery would be perfectly legal. And more homosexuals effect more public policy, of course homosexuality gradually becomes more acceptable.As a Christian I have to be concerned with what the word of God teaches me.I have to discontinue here until latter. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Granny Magda,I wrote: You responded: The sarcasm suggests that it was no thanks to Christian theologians that chattel slavery was outlawed. Now you say I slandered you. But if you wish to clarify this comment now maybe I can catch where I misunderstood your intent.Ie. As an descendent of US slaves it is nauseating to you that I would even consider for a moment that Christians and Christian theology was used to combat the slave trade .Is that not the jist of your comment ?I wrote no apologetic for slavery. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Quote me on the words I wrote which you considered the act to "talk down the seriousness of slavery".Quote me on the "apologetic" I wrote for slavery.I neither wrote a defense of all slavery or took it lightly. I mentioned that there were different kinds of slavery. I mentioned that some forms of indentured servitude involved people selling themselves into slavery. You mentioned the same thing.Incidently, concerning such indenturd servitude, I would never suggest that life could not be a living hell for such "voluntary" slaves either. Clearly European whites selling themselves to be slaves in the new world often lived to regret it as much as any stolen black slave. One advantage they had was they were not as easy to identify if they escaped.That is not me making light of slavery. It is historical realism. Maybe the kind of humanist denunciation you would expect from a secular social reformer is not there. But there is a denunciation of a Christ centered sort.Your outrage concerning slavery is probably 90% or more due to the Judeo/Christian moral ethic.So I think you mostly stand upon the Bible in order to try to slap God. You remind me of the child wanting to slap her mother on the face. But she cannot reach it unless she sits on her mother's lap.I am pretty sure that what moral indignation you flaunt here has its roots in concepts greatly enfluenced by the Judeo/Christian traditions. I doubt that Atheism, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism is at the root of your indignation against slavery. Briely, your list I don't agree with:1.) Sexism - " For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

​

For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot bve Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave or free man, there cannot be male and female; fpr you are all one in Christ." (Gal. 3:27-29) Clearly Paul is putting an axe to the root of different forms of traditional social stratification and oppression. The realm is "in Christ". That mean in the new testament church life.His exhortation is not a liberal "there should not be". It is that "there CANNOT be" . The apostle's charge is not that we OUGHT not to oppress in this way. His charge is the it simply cannot exist IF we want the new testament church life - "there CANNOT be ... male and female" .Christ swallows up sexism in the normal prevailing church life.2.) Homophobia - This deragatory term I take to mean an irrational fear of homosexuals. I reject that Paul did not exhort against an irrational terror of homosexuals. Based on this exhortation that Christians should not now expect to go out of the world to be rid of immorality. "I wrote to you in a letter not to mingle with fornicators, But not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous and rapacious, or idolators, since then you would have to go out of the world." (1 Cor. 5:9,10) Paul means that the Christians should not be so repulsed as to expect never to have to mingle with immoral sinners in the work place, in other neighberhood places, or in public social interactions. They would have to go out of the world to NEVER have interactions with such lifestyles.This is a restraining of a sense of phobia. In the church life they should realize that a little leaven leavens the whole lump (v.7,8). But they should not be adverse to sinners to the extent that they wish to rid them from the whole world.This is a restaining of a natural sense of phobia. And in Romans Paul writes: "If possible, as far as it depends on you, live in peace with all men." (Rom. 12:18) This word is not teaching of a phobia against anyone. It takes into account different levels of spiritual maturity and different degrees of Christ's love having grown in the believers.As far as it is possible with the Christian, he or she is to live in peace with all men. That is not an encouragement of a phobia.3.) Your "other forms of bigotry" are certainly dealt with in Romans 14 and 15 when Paul teaches the Christians to receive one another as Christ had also received them.You read the two chapters. The exhortation is towards generality, and tolerance with longsuffering in receiving one another into the fellowship of the churches.Paul was building churches. He was not lobbying for a "Christian society". His jurisdiction he does not extend to the making of laws to govern Roman society. He is concerned with these communities called "churches". And while the standard of morality taught is high, it is not through self effort but through living out Christ who is alive and available to the believers.He is not a social reformer. He is a church builder. He knows that the community of the church will still be in the midst of a "secular" world. To live in peace with all men according to the level of growth in spiritual grace, is his charge. And the Christians, while seeking to keep the church life pure, should not expect to rid the WORLD or to go OUT of the world to get away from sinful people.There is no tone from Paul that "You Christians have to go out into the Roman society and, by golly, PUT DOWN SIN everywhere you see it."You complain that Paul should have been more of a denouncer of this and that. He has no explicit denouncing of cocaine usage or of failing to use seat belts. He did not follow the ten commandments with commandment 11,12,13, 14, 15 ... on out to 100,000 with explicit "THOU SHALT NOTs".He points us MORE to Christ then he does to be repulsed by sin. he is not sin centered. He is Christ centered. He knows hatred towards sin in and of itself will not save man. It is the resurrected and available Christ who saves from the guilt and power of sin. And the Person of Christ is his main focus rather than chapter after chapter of denouncing a million and one human failings.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think a truly tolerant person is someone who first has something he really believes in. If a person is sloppy and simply is carried with the current of popular opinion, I don't call that true tolerance.Show me someone who first has some strong convictions. Then we can ascertain how tolerant that person is with those who believe differently.You wish me to center in homosexuality. But the focus I have in this discussion concerns whether the there is one God in the Bible or many.It is enough that the one God tells us of the confusion of a man seeking to have sexual relations with a man or a woman seeking to have sexual relations with a woman. The ground work is lain in Leviticus 20.Incest, beastiality, homosexuality, adultery are dealt with together.For example - "If there is a man who lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death" (Lev. 20:13, see also Lev. 18:21,22) . It is mentioned with burning the children to the god Molech.There were also the sin offerings, trespass offerings, and various offerings for atonement and reconcilation. So being found in the act of homosexual sex probably was not always, and maybe not often, followed by the harshness of a death penalty.At any rate in the New Testament Paul adds many things to the list of transgressions by which we are worthy of death. He does so without the implication that homosexual sex is more of an offense then, say, backbiting.To focus on the sin is to pull at a yarn so as to make it tighter and tighter. So I do not attempt to focus on the sin but on the Savior. In other words we all deserve to die who have sinned against God. The Gospel is that He died in our place.You may want me to rant on and on about homosexuality being bad. I am not going to let you manuevor me into that. If you don't agree with what God said in Leviticus or with the way He made an example of Sodom and Gamorrah, that is your business.Maybe in another post to someone who is interest, I will show that compared to the codes of other Near Eastern societies, the slave had it a lot better.Some comparisons have been made to ancient codes of the prescribed treatment of prisoners and slaves. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Ok. Hyperbole. Your humility is noted. I looked at it. But I don't see me talking down the seriouness of slavery. But I suppose that could be a matter of opinion.Somewhere someone could say Ellie Wiesel talked down the importance of the Holocaust, I suppose.Okay, someone can say by that brief post "You are not really showing the abject horrors of slavery." I'll accept that that is possible. I think I spoke to this already. The Gospel preacher Paul knew that some people would come to Christ in all manner of situations. Some would become believers as slaves. Some would come as masters.If you want to complain that Paul's very first instruction should have been: "Look, FIRST THINGS FIRST. STOP the Slavery already. Get out of that by any means necessary. Then we can go on to talk about the Gospel." If you are mad that the New Testament doesn't come off like that, I agree. The Apostle does not put front and center abolishonist rhetoric for its own sake.You think Paul should sound like a Social Reformer instructing the church in Rome to meet at the steps of the Roman Senate with protest plackards and tracts condemning slavery. This is your idea of what the New Testament should have read like, a Manifesto of Anti-Slavery document.No, it doesn't read like that. It reads more like this "If when you come to Jesus Christ to be His disciple, and you are in THIS or THAT situation, I would advize you to that this is how the indwelling Christ in you will begin to move in your conscience and in your spirit."Look, people came to trust in Jesus in all manner of walks of life. Paul first draws their attention like a laser to this Christ, this new life, this new divine walk on which they have entered.Your concept is filled, it seems, with the thought that Christ's apostles are here to help us have a better society. (That He is acknowledged as God and Center of our lives is quite secondary to you, Even I dare say irrelevant.)As one who has entered into the new testament church life I am impressed that Paul wrote that there CANNOT BE - slave and free man. There is no possibility.It is not a liberal rebuke "You SHOULD not behave this way." It is an explanation that such social stratification CANNOT be in the church. The two are mutualy exclusive.If you want the new testament church, you CANNOT have "slave and freeman" social oppression and stratification. If you want "slave and master, slave and freeman" social oppression, than you CANNOT have the Lord's church.You have to choose which one you want. That is the way it reads to me. "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

​

For as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

​

There CANNOT BE Jew and Greek, there CANNOT BE slave nor free man, there CANNOT BE male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

​

And if you are of Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." (Gal. 3:26-29, my emphasis) If you need more of a "Christian" anti-slavery protest, try John Brown and his armed slave revolt. Didn't say all slavery involved kidnapping. I intended to demonstrate that the condemnation of kidnapping makes chattel slavery pretty impossible to justify via the New Testament.Of course I know perfectly well all slavery did not involve kidnapping. We both pointed that out separately.Paul's concern is how the social oppression of various stratifications will ruin the church life. How such oppression will damage the church is his priority. What do you know about the year of Jubilee in the OT ?What do you think of the law of Moses that every seven years the indentured servants must be released along with all deptors ? (See Deut. 15)What do you think of God rebuking the Israelites in \[b\]Jeremiah 34:12 because they went and re-gained the slaves which the law had told them to release on the Jubilee. Read it. Was God happy with the re-enslavement or unhappy?Old Testament legislation sought to prevent voluntary debt-sevitude. Ordinances to protect the poor were ordained to avoid slavery. For example, the allowance of the poor to pick lingering fruit on the trees after their richer fellow Jews harvested the land (Lev. 19:9-10; 23:22; Deut. 24:20-21) .There were ordinances to lend freely to the poor (Deut. 15:7-8). There were ordinances forbidding charge of interest to the poor (Exo.22:25; Lev. 25:36-37)If the poor could not obtain larger stock for the offerings, smaller ones were ordained for them in their financial limitations (Lev. 5:7,11) Debt servants were to be released without the deptor doing so with a "grudging heart" (Deut. 15:10 NIV). That sounds rather liberal to me.One of God's goals was that there would be no poverty among His people - (Deut. 15:1-18), provided they obey His laws.The divine decrees to circumvent poverty should be seen as remedies for the emergence of the need for debt slavery to begin with. And God reminded the Hebrews to recall how they were slaves in Egypt so that if they did have slaves, they would empathize with them (Deut. 15:15).Your other comments I will respond to below.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Trying to tie this exchange in with the subject of the Thread, this Christian, (myself) does not hold that God in the NT is a different God than in the OT.If you think that my referal to the Levitical law of the year of Jubilee brands me as pro-slavery, I will just have to bear your slander. I am beginning to understand that any mention of slavery in the Bible will, with you, probably brand me as "pro-slavery".But I see God coming to the Hebrews with some realistic accomodation that certain customs of the surrounding nations, they also would be involved in. All things considered, I see Yahweh moving them in the direction to a far more just social establishment than ANY of the nations that surrounded them.But if the complaint is that the eradication of slavery was not Commandment # 1 of the Ten Commandments, I agree that it was not. And your modern sense of social indignation may be provoked that the Mosiac laws made rules about the practice of slavery.It did also about divorce, which was clearly not God's perfect will.
I think the movement and trend is toward relatively more just rules concerning slavery. I agree that that is not the preeminent message of Jesus.
I would have to say the same for divorce.
I would say the same for imprisonment, war, and capital punishment.His starting point is not any social reforms dear to the modern liberal mind (or conservative mind for that matter).The uppermost priority is to get men and women in touch with the living and avaliable Savior Christ, as soon and as solidly as possible.You see, in many ways, we are all enslaved, either to mammon, anxiety, pride, lust, etc. "He who commits sin is a slave to sin." The first priority of the NT is to get people in the realm and sphere of the living God through the Christ who is resurrected, alive, and available. This is putting the train engine before all the other cars in the train, where it ought to go.If you regard my analysis of the New Testament priorities as therefore "pro-slavery" I will just have to accept that charge. You could probably with the same rational charge such an attitude as "pro-war" or "pro-capitalist" or "pro-communist" or pro anything else you are perturbed at not being the immediate brunt of the words of Jesus. I think the center of the Bible is Jesus Christ. It holds up God incarnate in Jesus Christ as the highest level of morality on the earth. And I think its top and immediate thrust is to bring people into the realm and sphere of this living Lord Jesus. Then they may live through Him and be conformed into His image.I have already shown you that your charge of no condemnation of slavery in the New Testament is greatly over exaggerated.Paul was not out to create a theocratic "Christian country". He was out to establish communities within cities, identified BY cities, where in the constituents lived out the indwelling Christ in a corporate way.He said if you want this, then there CANNOT BE slave and free man. Again, Paul's tone is not that we Christians OUGHT not to have that. His tone is not that we Christians SHOULD not have that.His tone is that if we want the kingdom of God there CANNOT BE slave and freeman. You may say that is not an anti-slavery condemnation per se. Perhaps it isn't. But it is a PRO Christian church axiom which precludes that the institution of slavery and the healthy and normal Christian church are mutually exclusive. IF you want one you have to let go of the other. "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There cannot be Jew nor Greek, there cannot be slave nor free man, there cannot be male and female; for you are all one in Christ" (Gal. 3:27,28) God's purpose in the new covenant is to dispense His life, nature, and Spirit into people's beings. If you abolish social ills and still do not partake of this dispensing of God into man, that does not accomplish His eternal purpose.I hear in your posts a tone that "At least I am not so bad. At least I am strongly against slavery".Okay on a scale of 1 to 20 with 20 being the most just and the most righteous, where would you place Jesus Christ and where would you place yourself in comparison ?Are you saying that Jesus Christ could well have sat at your feet to learn a thing or two about righteous living and teaching ? I don't ask you to compare yourself with jaywill. I ask you to rate your righteous manner of living and teaching with that of the NT's central figure, Jesus Christ.As for the Old Testament, you are really, a comparison between the laws concerning slaves among the Israelites is better than the customs of other ancient Near East societies.Did you notice how Moses even altered ammended the law to establish a more just solution to the five daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27:1-11 ? Can you see in this incident a sensativity to social justice to problem of women inheriting a fair portion of the Good Land ? I do.That is not about slavery per se. But it does reveal ammendation of the laws at the protest for social justice. And the adjustment for the women was apparently sanctioned by God (Num. 27:11)The Old Testament, unlike many slave societies, affirms the full personhood of the debt-servants (Gen. 1:26-27; Job 31:13-15; Deut. 15:1-18)There was punishment to the slave owner who beat his slave to death - (Exodus 21:20-21)If you had to be a slave would you prefer to be a black slave in the antibellum South US or of the ancient Hebrews after Mt. Sinai ?If these three clear regulations of the Old Testament had been established in the antibellum South do you think slavery would have flourished? That is anti-kidnapping, anti-harm, and anti-slave return regulations - (Exo. 21:16, 20, 26-27) In a work entitled "The Theology of the Old Testament" Walter Eichrodt summarizes this: Yes, in the Old Testament we see that when God covenants Israel He expects that some social practices of the surrounding nations they too will be actively involved in. But slaves were to be treated as human beings and not just things. The laws moved Israel away from inhuman abuse.There was a social distinction between a servant and a free person, for sure. But a servant was protected by God's laws. Abusing this protection would result in the servant going free.In the seventh year, the year of Jubilee, the servant would be debt free and able to embark out on his own. He could enjoy a new status as a free person.There were some release laws in other Near Eastern cultures. But the differences betweent them and those of the Hebrews is more striking than the similarities.In Israel, even kings like David or Ahab were not above the law. They have been found to be more fair than the class distinctions discovered in other Near Eastern cultures, for example, the Code of Hammurabi. We can also see God disciplining kings who overstepped the rights of their social position in David, Solomon, Manasseh and others.The Levitical injunction was "You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly" (Lev. 19:15). This rule applied to kings and ordinary citizens. And Israel's treatment of slaves was unparelleled in the ancient Near East.Please do not twist these observations to demonstrate that I am pro-slavery. That is dishonest.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I don't see that at all. I see a progressive revelation covering a long period of time, gradually unfolding different characteristics of such an all-inclusive and all-incompasing God.His life is rich and varied. I don't have to "make them all into one God". Rather you have to labor to make them into many Gods because of your own narrowness. You fail to appreciate that the Source of all lives and of all creation could be so varied and all-incompasing that many centries and many different situations are needed to get a fuller picture of such an eternal One.You need to "divide and conquer". I can see God unfolding the revelation of Himself through different ages and finally becomming a man, the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I believe that you did say I was writing an apologetic FOR slavery. I am concerned that criticisms not be adopted too easily when they are not really valid in the full scheme of things.Some historical realism is in order too. It is not as if from the moment the Israelites encountered God at Mt. Sinai they were promised a utopia. To a degree He met them where they were at.I have tried to show that some of His laws moved them towards the direction of a relatively more just society. I think I was being realistic. The South had no such rule as letting the slaves go free every seven years.And I think that the debt-servitude of the Old Testament is an important difference. Sometimes, the poor sold themselves or had to sell family members into debt servitude.The laws against kidnapping are a strong contrast against what the South practiced. We should be realistic about the comparison.I think some of your passion clouds your objectivity. In the meantime, your motto is "Mutate and Survive" which I suspect is an endorsement of Evolution and Survival of the Fittest.So if religion and even the existence of God is out, then is Mutate and Survival of the Fittest the more JUST reality of life ? Then your slaves are simply the weaker humans dominated by the Fittest.At least in my belief there is a Last Judgment and an accounting by all of the moral life they have lived. With Mutate and Survive Evolution all wrong doers will simply melt peacefully into the dust. Where's the final justice in that ?Oh, thanks for the compliment (if it was one). But I am a sinner saved by grace. Apart from Christ, I have no good character. I boast of Christ living in me, alone. I don't see why a comparison is not helpful in evaluating that Jewish theocracy with the surrounding nations of the Canaanites and others.It does not mean that we should get everyone to come under Levititcal ordinances. But some moral aspects of the law of Moses are taught by Jesus in a uplifted and more penetrating way to establish our need for Himself as Lord and Savior.While Jesus undermined dietary laws and Sabbath keeping laws and other ritualistic laws, He hightened moral laws to show His more penetrating demand.You have heard you shall not commit adultery. But He says to us even to look at a woman to lust after her is to commit adultery in the heart already.You have heard that you shall not commit murder. but He says even if you fling a contemptuous term at someone, like "You Idiot" or "You Fool!" you are in danger of divine retribution.Christ used some of the moral standards of the Law as a springboard for His teaching of our need for salvation from the guilt and power of sin. This is important to the Christian church.This is important to evangelism too, to point people to Christ for salvation and transformation. To a great degree our modern morality in the west is due to the Judeao / Christian ethic.In a real sense you are standing on the Bible in order to launch a criticism of the Bible. I am pretty sure that your sense of the wrongness of slavery, for example, was not derived from Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or Atheism.I think that your sense of outrage stems from social movements largely influenced by Judeo / Christian moral concepts. Ie. Civil Rights championed by a Baptist preacher, Dr. M. L. King.To be fair, King's non-voilent movement was enfluenced by Ghandi of Indian Hinduism. Let's be fair.But refer also to how highly Ghandi spoke of Jesus Christ. Would that apply to indentured servitude also ?Regulation was made for the indentured slave who loved his master and would not go out free at the chance to do so (Exodus 21:5) If that provision was made there must have been instances of just slaver owners whose treatment of the slave was preferable to them rather than being released.Why should I not consider that God's wisdom foresaw some exceptions in the social system of slavery ? I am not trying to make an apologetic for slavery. I am appreciating the many facets and different angles of the institution the God in His wisdom saw to. Hey, divorce was no cakewalk to the poor woman in those days. The driven away woman was often forced into prostitution. I think if you could consult with some of the jilted spouses in the ancient Near East you'd find that divorce was a terribly socially oppressive situation.God instituted some protections to the discarded divorced woman. Why can't I mention that along with those parallel protections to slaves ? It shows God's justness. Now your spouting heated reactionary skepticism. You're just hurling contempt rather than discussion. This comment is just contempt showing. The whole Bible is about Jesus Christ. It is a gradual and progressive revelation culminating in the Word becomming flesh.How would I appreciate that Christ died for my sins without first seeing God's hatred for sin in the Old Testament ?And the writer of Hebrews was right to interpret Christ as the climax of God's speaking: "God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, ..." (Heb. 1:1,2a) The climax of God's speaking in the Bible is the incarnation of God as a Man, Jesus Christ. And the shadows, types, figures of the Old Testament foreshadow and symbolize this One.You know, such a rich Person needs to be revealed in many portions and in many ways.You revile the Christians faith because of your self righteousness and contempt for the teaching that you need a Savior.When it comes down to it I think your real irritation is that you are just so good that the thought of needing Christ and God is repulsive to your self righteous concept of yourself. Your sense of moral superiority to God concerning slavery is greatly enfluenced by social activism which was fueled by Judeao / Christian ethics. I already pointed out that in the church life, which he WAS commisioned to lay foundation for, he said that there CANNOT be slave or freeman. It is rather informed by my personal experience of practicing the new covenant church life for over 30 years. I speak from some experience.The normal Christian church life cannot have social stratafication which is widely practiced in the world at large. And I have seen the Holy Spirit's sanctification process change the tastes and attitudes of many people to break down these old walls.The statement is saying that Christ's sanctification and transformation work in the souls of the churching people will surely liberate them from these old oppresive social stratifications. The Holy Spirit will eventually have the last word in the Christian church.Now in the second coming of Christ, the world at large will see the freeing of prisoners and slaves along with the healings and restoration of nature itself.I follow God to a full liberation from the effects of the curse - today in the church life and tomorrow in the kingdom of Christ over the globe.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

My understanding of the way God works is not quite the same. With the omnipotent snap of the finger He could also bring immediate justice to various sins which He hates.Now if He were to do so right now you might find yourself immediately under the wrath of God for ever. Somehow I notice people argue that God should clear up the unrighteousness of man in a split second of omnipotent power. Yet these people somehow seem to God will somehow exempt themselves from His cleaning the slate.Now, when I read of the slavery of the Jews under Egypt I notice that God waited 400 years before He came in through Moses to deliver them. At first I too wondered why God would not simply clear up the situation sooner.Apparently, the Exodus was used by Him to accomplish something towards His greater purposes to bring them into the Good Land for the establishment of His kingdom on earth. He brought them OUT in order to bring them IN.I see God doing a work within man. A word within man is more difficult for Him. It is easy for God to simply call the universe into being. But man has his own will, his own idea, his own heart and soul. For God to wrought His purpose IN man involves Him in more trouble, more time, and the exercise of all of His wisdom and patience.I read the Bible and account for the WORK within man's being that God wants to wrought.Eventually, the Exodus did occur. And they almost stoned Moses and sought a leader to take them BACK to "the iron furnace" of slavery. Can you imagine that ?Eventually also the terrible slavery in the US was brought to a close. And in my opinion the same God had much to do with that.I think we all want God to solve our problems quickly. When I first came to Christ, I had no expectation that it would be a deep long lasting relationship. I just wanted Him to fix up some things and put the steering wheel back in my hands."God fix this. And don't go away too far. I may need you again sometime. In the mean time, I'll take it from here again. Thanks."Instead God gave me a sense of His support and nearness. He did not allow me to sink in the quicksand. But neither did He yank me out completely. It took some time as He did a work within me - a changing of my heart.I do know that overall, God is moving history in a direction of total freedom from decay, slavery, death, disease, unrighteousness, and sin of all kinds. He is definitely moving in that direction. "But the heavens and the earth now, by the same word, have been stored up for fire, being kept unto the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

​

But do not let this one thing escape you, beloeved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years amd a thousand years like on day.

​

The Lord does not delay regarding the promise, as some count delay, but is long-suffering toward you, ot intending that any perish but that all advance to repentance." (2 Pet. 3:7-9) I do not count the "long-suffering" of the righteous God to be a sign that He is not omnipotent. I see His desire that none would perish under His judgment but all would advance to repentance.We know that a world in which there is ONLY righteousness is coming. " But according to His promise we are expecting new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. Therefore, beloved, since you expect these things, be diligentto be found by Him in peace without spot and without blemish." (vs. 13,14) In the meantime His Spirit is operating in His patience to wrought the believers into the image of His Son - in peace, without spot or blemish in any moral way. We NEED time in order for God to transform us.\[b\]"From the standpoint of God it has already been accomplished and John has already seen this new universe without unrighteousness (including that of mammon, poverty, and slavery). "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and the sea is no more." (Rev. 21:1)

​

And I heard a loud voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will tabernacle with them, and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them and be their God.

​

And He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and death will be no more, nor will there be sorrow or crying or pain anymore; for the former things have passed away.

​

And He who sits on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And He said, Write, for these words are faithful and true." (vs.4,5)
So I see God moving the history of the universe towards the inevitable destiny of His total kingdom. But I also see His long-suffering and process to transform His people from within, by His Spirit working to save from this fate: "But the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters and all the false, their part will be in the lake which burns with fire and brimestone, which is the second death." (v. 8) I would not count God's gradual process and unfolding of His will in a progressive way with long-suffering and patience, as a sign of Him not being omnipotent.

quote:

---

A "moral guide" that includes atrocities and justifies small crimes on humanity is no moral guide at all.

---

First I have to distinguish between what the Bible teaches as to how I should live from what the Bible records as having happened.Not everything that the book records has having occured is an instruction for you to go do the same.And the revelation is unfolding. The Gospel of Luke does not immediately follow Genesis. And Leviticus is not the final epistle to the new covenant church. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.