Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2019 1:21 AM
40 online now:
Dredge (1 member, 39 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,563 Year: 3,600/19,786 Month: 595/1,087 Week: 185/212 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Author Topic:   Do Christians Worship Different Gods?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(1)
Message 256 of 286 (634512)
09-22-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by jaywill
09-20-2011 2:24 PM


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.

Fair enough. If that ever happens, be sure to let me know. However, since it hasn't happened, I guess you must be making shit up.

The Methodist, Quakers, and Mennonites were Christian groups which strongly opposed slavery.

Yes they were. And if I had said that they were not, you might have a point. I didn't say that though, nor did I ever imply that Christians were not involved in the abolition movement. You appear to be making shit up again.

Tell you what, how about you try and stick to addressing the points I actually make, rather than the dumb shit you make up.

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.

That myth is indeed a racist myth in its original form. Of course the best way of debunking it is to point out that it is not true...

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.

I don't care how he ranks them, the problem is that he mentions homosexuality in the same breath as murder. The same problem exists with regards to "fornicators"; there is no immoral act here. There is no "sin". That Paul believes there is only serves to demonstrate that he is morally illiterate. That you, an educated modern American call homosexuality a "sin" is tantamount to hate speech.

My original point still stands. The inclusion of innocent activities like homosexual sex as sins makes the Bible a worthless moral guide for modern people.

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.

Oh, sorry, what did you say? Only I'm in a room full of latex-clad men having buttsecks and it's a little bit distracting.

Oh never mind. It probably wasn't anything important.

Your outrage could be a result of your being brought into an insensative stupor in the downward current of morality.

Funny, I was just going to blame your lack of outrage on an insensate stupor, only this one seems to have been brought on by taking the opinions of ancient bigots too seriously. Each to their own I suppose.

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.

I'm not talking about the Atlantic slave trade, stop bringing it up. It's not relevant. this is just another example of you trying to put words in my mouth.

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)

Is this the same book of Exodus in which we are given instructions on how to buy a person into indentured service? And that if he refuses to give up his wife and children when you cut him loose, you can keep him enslaved for life? And is this the same book where we are told that if you beat your servant, but the poor wretch lingers a day couple of days before dying form his wounds, that you should go unpunished? Why yes it is the same book. Same chapter actually. I'm surprised you didn't notice those bits. Or at least I would be surprised had we not danced this horrid little dance on previous occasions.

I think the anti-slavery message here could be clearer. Saying that slavery is wrong instead of giving instructions on how to beat ones slaves would be a good start.

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.

Crap. The abolition movement was equally informed by Enlightenment principles. The Rights of Man probably had as much effect as the Bible. If you regard Christianity as being the great vanquisher of slavery, you need to explain why Christians practised it for nearly two thousand years.

Granny writes:

The image of slaves being dragged from their homes screaming for help not an entirely inaccurate one, but it was far from universal.

jaywill writes:

I got to know that already a while ago.

Well then, you have no excuse for your little game of palm the pea in trying to equate a ban on kidnapping with a ban on slavery.

Perhaps, some forms of indentured servitude slavery are not so condemned in that particular passage.

That is exactly my point; an eternal, trancendant moral guide would condemn all slavery. The Bible does not, thus its value as a moral guide is nil.

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.

Well go talk to them about it, because I am not talking about the that era.

If we condemn slavery and fail to live Christ, it is of no use to the kingdom of God.

And if youy lionise a centuries-dead mystic but fail to condemn to slavery, all your pious waffle is of no use to me.

Granting to your slave what is just and equal really puts a damper on the practice.

Excep that this is undermined immediately by comparing the master slave relationship to God and man, therefore further cementing the normality of slavery. This is a poor substitute for a simple "slavery is wrong, don't keep slaves" message.

All you have here is yet another inconsistency in the Bible. This is not exactly a revelation.

He intention is not that they would center their attention on their sins but on Christ.

That right there is your biggest problem. You want people to focus on a dead Jewish preacher instead of reality. That is what makes people like you such a danger to civil society. you want us all to waste our lives chasing after divine white rabbits instead of actually changing the world for the better. I find that rather tragic.

Only in your accusing mind because he does not sound to you like a social activist.

No, a passage telling masters how to treat their slaves is pretty clealr a passage that regards slavery as a normal and everyday practise. That is abundantly clear to everyone not currently wearing their Magic Jesus GlassesTM.

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.

Well his words clearly demonstrate otherwise, with his demonisation of homosexuals being a good example.

As lover of God I have to not only know what the Scripture says. I have to know "again it is written" also.

Right. For your interpretation to make a shred of sense, you have to be deeply committed to fundamentalist Christianty already. That makes it worthless to anyone who is not already yyour felow traveller.

So it seems that at least the pro-slavery interpreters did not win out in the end. Do you wish they did ?

Fuck you.

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 ?

No.

I think that the passage you cite is using the term metphorically. It is telling us not to fall under the sway of mortal men, to turn instead to God. It clearly isn't talking about literal slavery, as that would make its advice wholly redundant, since it amounts to no more than "Don't get caught!". I think most people knew that bit.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by jaywill, posted 09-20-2011 2:24 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 11:40 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 257 of 286 (634514)
09-22-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by GDR
09-19-2011 3:30 PM


Re: Is Hell Just?
I don't really know how to answer this.

I think that your main problem is the amount that you seem to need to be taken on faith. God's existence, his character, the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, the list goes on. For me that is just too long a list, full of too many big asks. I can't believe even half of that to be true, yet your interpretation of the Bible depends upon all of it being true. It's just too much.

The other problem is that for all the appeal of your version of God, it is still just one version. It is just as easy to paint another picture of God, if one is willing to interpret the texts as loosely as you do.

I think that your philosophy, whilst superficially appealing, asks for too great a suspension of skepticism, whilst offering very little.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by GDR, posted 09-19-2011 3:30 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by GDR, posted 09-22-2011 2:21 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 258 of 286 (634523)
09-22-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by jaywill
09-22-2011 7:55 AM


Hi jaywill

I won't respond point by point because your post is all on the same theme and I think can be better answered in a general sense.

The major difference in the church today and the reason that we worship a different god is our understanding of how to read the Bible. People like you like to use that verse in 2nd Timothy which talks about the writers of scripture being inspired as justification for understanding the Bible to be essentially dictated by God.

Think about the word inspired. We say for example that Beethoven's music was inspired. Nobody thinks that God gave him every note to write. We say that Martin Luther King's speeches were inspired but nobody is suggesting that God gave him a word by word account of what he had to say.

What that verse means is that the Biblical writers were inspired to give an account of the stories and history of what they and their societies experienced. Also of course there is mythology, poetry etc. The story of Job is written in such a manner that it appears to be written to be performed as a play. The Song of Songs is written as a love letter.

However, within all of that is this thread of a monotheistic god that is different than the pagan gods of their neighbours. It is a god that desires that people love one another, be kind to one another, treat each other fairly etc. God has chosen this particular family to give this revelation to with the intent that this message will be given to the world.

We then come to the NT where all of this comes to a climax, and where God is fully revealed through His anointed one Jesus the Messiah. God speaks directly through Jesus to the Jews and so now we have a message that is much more focused.

The thing is, as I have said before, the god that you worship is a god that engages in situational ethics to achieve the very human goals such as the conquering of neighbour societies and occupying the land. You have to believe that God is two kinds of god. You give Him a split personality. On the one hand He is the God that says go down and slaughter every man woman and child, and on the other He is saying love your enemy. He has given us the gift of reason and I suggest that He intended us to use that gift to sort it out and frankly I donít think it is that difficult.

I think that in our desire to have hard and fast answers it is convenient to treat the Bible as if it was dictated by God but that requires turning the Bible into something like a fourth member of the Trinity. (Of course then it wouldnít be a trinity anymore. ) What God wants of us is that we have loving hearts. Read Matthew 25 about the sheep and the goats. The righteous were those that loved their neighbour without understanding that it was actually Jesus they were loving and serving. The Biblical message is clear that in the end what God wants of us is that we are people that serve others out of love without concern for any reward. The theology is interesting and informative but God is quite capable of handling His end of things whether we understand it or not. It isnít our theology that it is important it is a question of who and what we love in our lives. Do we love selfishly or do we love unselfishly, and we all, regardless of our theology can make that choice.

As always of course this is JMHO.

Cheers


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 7:55 AM jaywill has not yet responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 259 of 286 (634525)
09-22-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Granny Magda
09-22-2011 9:49 AM


Fair enough. If that ever happens, be sure to let me know. However, since it hasn't happened, I guess you must be making shit up.

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.

me:
The Methodist, Quakers, and Mennonites were Christian groups which strongly opposed slavery.

Yes they were. And if I had said that they were not, you might have a point. I didn't say that though, nor did I ever imply that Christians were not involved in the abolition movement.

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.


Tell you what, how about you try and stick to addressing the points I actually make, rather than the dumb shit you make up.

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.


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.

That myth is indeed a racist myth in its original form. Of course the best way of debunking it is to point out that it is not true...

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.


me:
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.

I don't care how he ranks them, the problem is that he mentions homosexuality in the same breath as murder. The same problem exists with regards to "fornicators"; there is no immoral act here. There is no "sin". That Paul believes there is only serves to demonstrate that he is morally illiterate. That you, an educated modern American call homosexuality a "sin" is tantamount to hate speech.

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.


My original point still stands. The inclusion of innocent activities like homosexual sex as sins makes the Bible a worthless moral guide for modern people.

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.


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.

Oh, sorry, what did you say? Only I'm in a room full of latex-clad men having buttsecks and it's a little bit distracting.

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.


me:
Oh never mind. It probably wasn't anything important.

Your outrage could be a result of your being brought into an insensative stupor in the downward current of morality.

Funny, I was just going to blame your lack of outrage on an insensate stupor, only this one seems to have been brought on by taking the opinions of ancient bigots too seriously. Each to their own I suppose.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 9:49 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 2:47 PM jaywill has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 260 of 286 (634544)
09-22-2011 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Straggler
09-22-2011 7:56 AM


Re: different gods for different bods
Straggler writes:

That actually sounds like quite a dangerous approach to me. If you dispossess yourself of responsibility for your own moral stance then it becomes impossible to morally reason. Now in your case you have found God and adopted a forgiving and compassionate moral stance. All well and good. But others equally convinced that their version of God is correct have adopted an abhorrant and hateful stance (as previously linked to).

If any challenge to oneís moral stance can be met with ďBut it isnít my moral stance, it is the one handed to me by GodĒ then I donít see how we can hope to reason our way to a moral position and take responsibility for itís consequences.

I understand your point. It reminds of hearing Christian singers sing a song that they have written declaring that God had given it to them, and after hearing it I have to conclude that their god is no Beethoven, Gershwin or Lennon and McCartney to put it kindly.

I guess I can go right back to the Bible where we see in some cases the early Jews ignoring the message that Yahweh is a God that desires kindness, justice and unselfishness, and instead use His name to justify their human desires for wealth, influence and power. There are still people doing that today and the web site that you pointed me to is an example of that. However, the same thing can be done in the name of nationalism. As humans there is always some way we can find of justifying the things that we do. In the case you cited they just use a perverted view of the Bible to do it but if it wasn't that they would find something else.

We all choose and I can only make the choices that I make because, IMHO, God made that choice an option, which I think is clear to us in many ways, so I can't see that I can take any credit for the choice that I made. As I say, we choose to love selfishly or unselfishly and I choose the former, now all I have to do is put it into practice.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Straggler, posted 09-22-2011 7:56 AM Straggler has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 261 of 286 (634549)
09-22-2011 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Granny Magda
09-22-2011 10:09 AM


Re: Is Hell Just?
Granny Magda writes:

I think that your main problem is the amount that you seem to need to be taken on faith. God's existence, his character, the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, the list goes on. For me that is just too long a list, full of too many big asks. I can't believe even half of that to be true, yet your interpretation of the Bible depends upon all of it being true. It's just too much.

I don't see it as that big a leap of faith although I agree that faith is a part of it.

I'll make 4 points in sequence.

1/ I don't believe that it takes a huge leap of faith to come to the subjective conclusion that the intelligence and sense of morality that we objectively experience is quite likely to have originated from an intelligent, moral source.

If we accept that then we can go to the next step.

2/ If that is true then it seems to me that after going to all the bother of bringing about the existence of beings with intelligence and a sense of morality this prime mover would continue to have an ongoing interest and involvement with these beings. It then reasonably follows that the way that this prime mover might accomplish this is through the minds of these beings.

I believe that the OT is the story of God doing this but at the same time, just as it is today, His message got mixed in with all of their desires for wealth, power etc.

And from there:

If we are dealing with a God that brought us into existence the idea of Him choosing a human through whom He could bring His unfiltered message to His created beings doesn't seem that complicated or unlikely.

If we accept all of the above then I think that the message for what happens at the end of time that as we know it makes sense.

4/ If the above is correct we can see that things arenít the way God wants them. The world is often at war; selfishness is rampant; death is a part of life; there is famine and so often instead of joy there is sorrow.

It follows then that based on the first 3 points the Biblical message that God plans to re-create the whole business in such a way that all sorrow will be replaced by joy and death will be no more makes sense.

My view and the Biblical view is that the resurrected Jesus is the first example, (the new Adam), of this re-created universe.

I think that following things through in that sequence at least gives a picture of how I come to the conclusions that I have come to.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 10:09 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 3:00 PM GDR has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 262 of 286 (634550)
09-22-2011 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by jaywill
09-22-2011 11:40 AM


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.

What is wrong with you? Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I say? I NEVER SAID THAT THERE WEREN'T CHRISTIAN ABOLITIONISTS! How clear do I need to make this?

Of course there were non-Christian abolitionists as well, but none of this is even remotely close to the point.

Maybe I misunderstood you. I'll check that latter.

You know, you could check before you slander me.

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.

Well clearly you don't understand me, or you wouldn't be beating up strawmen. And for the record, I'm don't swear in order to bolster a point, I do it because I feel like it. When I talk with you, I seem to feel like it quite frequently.

Actually, this is another fine example of how Christianity has stunted your morals. You wade through the vile excrement of Exodus 21 and pronounce it as smelling of roses, yet if I put the letters S, H, I and T together, you take umbrage. Get some perspective Jay.

The vicious nature of the racism of it pre-dates Christianity.

Yes. All the more reason to simply jettison it, along with all the rest of the Old Testament nastiness.

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.

I'm sorry for your loss, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no possible coherent moral objection to homosexuality or homosexual activity. The Bible nonetheless calls them sins. This is a moral failing.

Now if you had a coherent moral argument against homosexuality, you might have a point, but you have no such thing. The Bible labels innocent people as "sinners" and thus reveals itself as valueless in any moral sense.

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.

Either bring the moral argument against homosexuality (one that doesn't depend on what your imaginary friend thinks of it) or don't. If you can't though, I have to assume that you are just blowing hot air.

It only takes some Phd. to announce that people are born homosexual to incite the strongest passions to defend the gay lifestyle.

Actually, I regard that as an irrelevant distraction. It doesn't matter to me whether gay people are born that way or chose to live that way. All that is relevant is that there exists no coherent moral objection to homosexuality. All else is just wind.

jaywill writes:

A great deal of irrelevant waffle...

Quit preaching at me jay. It's not going to work.

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".

Great. Nice one.

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 know. That's why I say that you have no morality. You can't tell the difference between a harmless and innocent activity and a genuinely immoral act. And it is apparently Christianity that has made you this way. It's a genuinely tragic.

I have to discontinue here until latter.

Really? 1500 words, most of it irrelevant waffle and you're still not done? You sure do suffer from logorrhea. Don't feel like you have to press on on my account. I think I've heard plenty.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 11:40 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 6:52 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 263 of 286 (634551)
09-22-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by GDR
09-22-2011 2:21 PM


Re: Is Hell Just?
1/ I don't believe that it takes a huge leap of faith to come to the subjective conclusion that the intelligence and sense of morality that we objectively experience is quite likely to have originated from an intelligent, moral source.

If we accept that then we can go to the next step.

Would it surprise you to hear that I fall at the first fence?

I can't accept that this is as minor an assumption as you claim. I think it's a staggeringly huge assumption, mostly because it assumes the existence of a being for which we have no evidence and absolutely no precedent. God is utterly unlike anything that we have ever observed. Morality on the other hand seems not very different from many other animal social behaviours, all of which appear entirely natural.

2/ If that is true then it seems to me that after going to all the bother of bringing about the existence of beings with intelligence and a sense of morality this prime mover would continue to have an ongoing interest and involvement with these beings. It then reasonably follows that the way that this prime mover might accomplish this is through the minds of these beings.

I don't think that's a good assumption either. God might be a hands off deity. Or maybe he made us as part of a project that he later grew bored of. A deist God actually makes more sense to me when you look at the state of the world. I find it much harder to believe in an interventionist God, when he doesn't do much in the way of intervention. I know your arguments as to why he doesn't intervene, but I don't think that this version of God is any more likely than the absentee kind. Of course deist gods are kind of boring to discuss...

If we are dealing with a God that brought us into existence the idea of Him choosing a human through whom He could bring His unfiltered message to His created beings doesn't seem that complicated or unlikely.

No. But it does seem extremely limited and ineffective.

4/ If the above is correct we can see that things arenít the way God wants them. The world is often at war; selfishness is rampant; death is a part of life; there is famine and so often instead of joy there is sorrow.

It follows then that based on the first 3 points the Biblical message that God plans to re-create the whole business in such a way that all sorrow will be replaced by joy and death will be no more makes sense.

Some sense perhaps, but it sounds more like wish-fulfilment to me. I also find it hard to see how the hyper-competent God could create something so disappointing.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by GDR, posted 09-22-2011 2:21 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by GDR, posted 09-22-2011 7:48 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 264 of 286 (634552)
09-22-2011 3:28 PM


You know, you could check before you slander me.

Granny Magda,

I wrote:


It is very difficult to suggest the New Testament supports the slavery of the kind my forebearers were of (being African American).

You responded:


That only makes your latest extended apologetic for slavery even more nauseating. You really ought to know better.

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 5:13 PM jaywill has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 265 of 286 (634561)
09-22-2011 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by jaywill
09-22-2011 3:28 PM


I only meant that, as a African American, you of all people ought to know better than to talk down the seriousness of slavery. That is what I feel you are doing.

The Bible, especially the New Testament, might, as an enlightened moral guide, be expected to denounce slavery. It doesn't. It also fails to denounce sexism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. I think that this underlines what a patchy moral guide the Bible really is. It certainly proves that the Bible is not a timeless and transcendent moral guide.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 3:28 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 6:16 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 266 of 286 (634567)
09-22-2011 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Granny Magda
09-22-2011 5:13 PM


I only meant that, as a African American, you of all people ought to know better than to talk down the seriousness of slavery. That is what I feel you are doing.

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.


The Bible, especially the New Testament, might, as an enlightened moral guide, be expected to denounce slavery.

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.


It doesn't. It also fails to denounce sexism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. I think that this underlines what a patchy moral guide the Bible really is. It certainly proves that the Bible is not a timeless and transcendent moral guide.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 5:13 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 7:21 PM jaywill has responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 267 of 286 (634568)
09-22-2011 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Granny Magda
09-22-2011 2:47 PM


I know. That's why I say that you have no morality. You can't tell the difference between a harmless and innocent activity and a genuinely immoral act. And it is apparently Christianity that has made you this way. It's a genuinely tragic.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 2:47 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 268 of 286 (634570)
09-22-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by jaywill
09-22-2011 6:16 PM


Quote me on the "apologetic" I wrote for slavery.

Okay, I'll concede that "apologetic for slavery" is hyperbole. But I still think that you are downplaying the seriousness of slavery.

Quote me on the words I wrote which you considered the act to "talk down the seriousness of slavery".

In Message 211

It is very difficult to suggest the New Testament supports the slavery of the kind my forebearers were of (being African American).

You are muddying the issue here. The point is not whether NT-era slavery was as bad as American slavery. It is that the NT does not condemn slavery and seems to regard it as normal.

You then go on at some length about kidnapping, as though to suggest that all slavery involves kidnapping, when in fact you know perfectly well that this is not the case.

The sane reaction to the Bible's position on slavery is one of strong disapproval. I think that any reasonable Christian should be willing to clearly denounce those portions of the Bible. You seem to be unwilling to do this. Instead, you rally to the support of several damning passages (your apparent approval of the truly vile Exodus 21 is a good example of this. Overall, this attitude makes it look as though you view defending the Bible to be more important than condemning slavery.

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.

Which makes it totally valueless for anyone who doesn't already believe what you believe.

Your outrage concerning slavery is probably 90% or more due to the Judeo/Christian moral ethic.

The fact that this is complete rubbish is probably a whole other debate.

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.

*vomits*

You don't get it. I don't want to "slap" Yahweh any more than I want to slap Darth Vader or Doctor Doom*. I am not motivated to oppose religion by my emotional reactions to fictional characters. I oppose it because I think that religion is both false and harmful.

Briely, your list I don't agree with:

1.) Sexism - " For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

That you should choose to defend against charges of Biblical sexism with a quotation that begins "For you are all sons" is astonishing.

Christ swallows up sexism in the normal prevailing church life.

How many female preachers does your denomination have Jay?

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 never claimed that Paul encouraged lynching gays or anything of that nature. My objection is to his characterisation of homosexuality as "sin" and that he even goes so far as to mention it in the same line as murder. To my mind this is hate speech and it represents a critical moral failure on his part that reveals Paul as a bad moral guide.

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.

I actually agree that Paul's letters (and those attributed to him) should be viewed against a certain historical backdrop. My point is that that very historical setting is what undermines the Bible as a moral guide in a modern context. It is written by the standards of the time, that is plain. I think that this undermines the claims of some Christians that the Bible is a transcendent moral guide, full of timeless wisdom. It isn't. It's just a product of its times, comparatively enlightened in some respects but shockingly outdated in others.

Slavery, sexism, homophobia, racism, and of course science; these are some of the areas where the Bible has not aged well. I think that honest Christians should simply admit to this rather than playing silly games where we try to exonerate these disgraced texts.

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.

Don't take the piss. He didn't denounce suicide bombing because the bomb belt hadn't been invented and he didn't denounce internet trolling because Artemis Entreri hadn't been born. Slavery had been invented. You can't use that excuse.

He did not follow the ten commandments with commandment 11,12,13, 14, 15 ... on out to 100,000 with explicit "THOU SHALT NOTs".

I don't think that excuse work either. This is not some obscure technicality we're talking about, it is one of the most heinous acts that it's possible to commit. This one should be right up there with "thou shalt not commit murder". It is certainly far more serious than some of the actual Ten Commandments. Yet it's missing.

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.

Yeah, it's a shame isn't it. Talk about a missed opportunity. I mean, he could have talked about something useful.

Mutate and Survive

*I will admit to a fairly strong desire to punch Joffrey Baratheon in mouth.

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by jaywill, posted 09-22-2011 6:16 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by jaywill, posted 09-23-2011 2:41 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 269 of 286 (634575)
09-22-2011 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Granny Magda
09-22-2011 3:00 PM


What is Truth?
Granny Magda writes:

Would it surprise you to hear that I fall at the first fence?


Anything else would have surprised me.

Granny Magda writes:

I can't accept that this is as minor an assumption as you claim. I think it's a staggeringly huge assumption, mostly because it assumes the existence of a being for which we have no evidence and absolutely no precedent. God is utterly unlike anything that we have ever observed. Morality on the other hand seems not very different from many other animal social behaviours, all of which appear entirely natural.

Fair enough but my point was that it is a reasonable possibility that it is true. I don't suggest it is conclusive. To reject that you have to believe that life, morality and intelligence all had to have as a first cause something that was material, non-moral and non-intelligent. We both have subjectively come to different conclusions about which is more likely.

Granny Magda writes:

I don't think that's a good assumption either. God might be a hands off deity. Or maybe he made us as part of a project that he later grew bored of. A deist God actually makes more sense to me when you look at the state of the world. I find it much harder to believe in an interventionist God, when he doesn't do much in the way of intervention. I know your arguments as to why he doesn't intervene, but I don't think that this version of God is any more likely than the absentee kind. Of course deist gods are kind of boring to discuss...

What I'm saying is that I believe that God is active in the hearts, minds and imaginations of humans and for all I know some other life forms as well. I have no way of demonstrating that but it makes sense of a lot of things in my own life.

A deistic god doesn't make sense to me. I know that the kids that I had a hand in creating are of great interest to me and I maintain regular contact.

Granny Magda writes:

Some sense perhaps, but it sounds more like wish-fulfilment to me. I also find it hard to see how the hyper-competent God could create something so disappointing.

The point was that it ain't finished yet. Wait until you see the final product before you pass judgement.

Edited by GDR, : No reason given.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 3:00 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Granny Magda, posted 10-01-2011 5:07 AM GDR has responded

    
jaywill
Member (Idle past 18 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 270 of 286 (634723)
09-23-2011 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Granny Magda
09-22-2011 7:21 PM


Okay, I'll concede that "apologetic for slavery" is hyperbole. But I still think that you are downplaying the seriousness of slavery.

Ok. Hyperbole. Your humility is noted.


Quote me on the words I wrote which you considered the act to "talk down the seriousness of slavery".

In Message 211

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.


me:
It is very difficult to suggest the New Testament supports the slavery of the kind my forebearers were of (being African American).

You are muddying the issue here. The point is not whether NT-era slavery was as bad as American slavery. It is that the NT does not condemn slavery and seems to regard it as normal.

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.


You then go on at some length about kidnapping, as though to suggest that all slavery involves kidnapping, when in fact you know perfectly well that this is not the case.

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.


The sane reaction to the Bible's position on slavery is one of strong disapproval.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Granny Magda, posted 09-22-2011 7:21 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Granny Magda, posted 10-01-2011 5:42 AM jaywill has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019