Quote :

"So does menstealer mean 'slave-trader'? Or is it just convenient for you to lump the entire slave-trade in with kidnapping? The fact of the matter is slavery continued on our planet with Biblical support for nearly 2000 years after Christ. While modern Christians were pivotal in abolishing it, they weren't motivated by the Bible. They were motivated by the secular ideals promoted by our country, namely that all people should be counted equally."

If you read fun's post I believe the claim is that there is a difference between forcing someone into slavery, and those who went voluntarily in to become servants. The OT and NT condemn forcing people into slavery, but do not condemn those who go voluntarily into servitude, or I believe, I'd probably need to check, it may have servitude as a punishment for certain actions or if someone cannot recompense an injury.


Also you make it sound like slavery is the only bad thing people justified by the Bible. Man can corrupt the word and take things out of context, change up their wording slightly and justify terrible acts, what do you think happened with the crusades, see my prior post where I spoke of how messengers of the Gospel were supposed to act.

8/1/2011 10:40:14 AM

Quote :

"If you read fun's post I believe the claim is that there is a difference between forcing someone into slavery, and those who went voluntarily in to become servants. The OT and NT condemn forcing people into slavery, but do not condemn those who go voluntarily into servitude, or I believe, I'd probably need to check, it may have servitude as a punishment for certain actions or if someone cannot recompense an injury."

LOL

Quote :

"Leviticus 25:44-46: Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Right... the bible doesn't condemn slavery. It just encourages you to buy children of foreigners for use as your permanent property and the permanent property of your own children.

8/1/2011 10:51:26 AM

But that was the OT. The NT clearly states that owning people is wrong. Oh wait.

Quote :

"Also you make it sound like slavery is the only bad thing people justified by the Bible. Man can corrupt the word and take things out of context, change up their wording slightly and justify terrible acts, what do you think happened with the crusades, see my prior post where I spoke of how messengers of the Gospel were supposed to act."

No, I'm stating that slavery is something that is clearly wrong the Bible got it completely wrong in both the OT and the NT.

And of course the Crusades weren't caused by irrational religious beliefs! It was man, getting it wrong! True Christians would never have killed thousands of people.

8/1/2011 11:05:58 AM

The best part is that Leon has condemned believing for one's own benefit (which I respect) and instead we are left with believing because God is good:

Quote :

"We have faith in God and can no longer turn away, because to do so would be to know good and choose evil."

Unless you want to define "good" as whatever God decides to do at the time, the OT clearly demonstrates that God is not good. So what reason would any of us have to become Christians?

8/1/2011 11:16:26 AM

Quote :

"And of course the Crusades weren't caused by irrational religious beliefs! It was man, getting it wrong! True Christians would never have killed thousands of people."

To be honest I don't know why I bother, you're so set in your ways that you refuse to even consider the amount of scripture that condemns such behavior. And like I said, I don't have all the Jewish ceremonial law memorized. If it's in Lev then it was certainly part of their law then, but the ceremonial law is abolished now.

We give you countless explanation as to what something means and you just dismiss it as "linguistics." But on the other hand you condemn the Bible for being written by man and saying that something could be lost in the translation. What can I say to such an encompassing argument?

8/1/2011 11:19:13 AM

Quote :

"If it's in Lev then it was certainly part of their law then, but the ceremonial law is abolished now."

Maybe you don't get it. If it's in Lev, then it means God once approved of it as a moral action. It doesn't matter if you have an interpretation that says the law was abolished. It was wrong to begin with.

8/1/2011 11:23:04 AM

Quote :

"Maybe you don't get it. If it's in Lev, then it means God once approved of it as a moral action. It doesn't matter if you have an interpretation that says the law was abolished. It was wrong to begin with."

I'm aware of that, but God also commanded the whole slaughter of civilizations and destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. During the time of the law, those who wholly disobeyed, were exhibited to wrath and punishment. Ceremonial law for the Jews, was likely a means of controlling slavery, so that it was not abusive or malicious, I'd imagine it did not always work out that way, but yes, it was condoned. I also don't have all the answers to justify everyone's moral sense on the issue.

8/1/2011 11:30:21 AM

^You seem to be pretty aware of the atrocities in the OT. Kudos.

So why doesn't that bother you? You said on the previous page that saints have faith because they recognize God is good. Is slavery and genocide your definition of "good"? Do you actually have a personal definition for that word?

8/1/2011 11:36:29 AM

yeah Euro, you missed the part earlier where Leon proclaims that God is allowed to do evil shit but it's not evil when he does it. That's the logical leaps you have to make to be a Biblical literalist. It's either that or you go the more common route of saying "well, there's no way God actually did that so the OT is bullshit, but all this NT stuff that's really reliant on the OT bullshit is true anyway."

Quote :

"We give you countless explanation as to what something means and you just dismiss it as "linguistics." "

But even your explanations are lacking. You can write essays on what submit means in ancient Greek, and the message is still clear. You can write essays on what love really means in the context of a man loving his wife and it doesn't change the message. You misunderstand me when I belittle up your linguistic gymnastics. It's not that I'm overwhelmed by your explanations, it's that I am unimpressed.

Quote :

"But on the other hand you condemn the Bible for being written by man and saying that something could be lost in the translation. What can I say to such an encompassing argument?"

Which is it? The infallible word of God, or mistranslated nonsense that requires essays to explain what appear to be clear messages? Why would God write a book that requires entire fields of study to explain the original meaning? Why would the original meaning not be evident from the words themselves and in a language that everyone could understand?

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 11:38 AM. Reason : .]

8/1/2011 11:36:42 AM

Quote :

"Is slavery and genocide your definition of "good"? Do you actually have a personal definition for that word?"

Well, this would fall under more where God is just, he said he would destroy the wicked if they did not turn from good and that's what he did. For example, if those societies had continued in their depravity it may have had horrible ramifications for the future man, we cannot always know the mechanism behind the work of God, only that his will is always for good. The slavery issue is more, slavery, had existed and was going to exist within Hebrew society, God wanted to place laws around servitude so that it was not abusive or exploitative.

Quote :

"God is allowed to do evil shit but it's not evil when he does it. "

This is kind of like saying well we shouldn't have killed Nazi's because it's evil. Except I cannot quantify the wickedness of these destroyed civilizations and neither can you, God always works good because God is always just.

8/1/2011 5:11:44 PM

When you have to fall back on circular logic/tautologies, that's when you know your argument is toast.

8/1/2011 5:14:47 PM

^^
Ahhh, the old, 'when God does evil it's good because it's all part of the divine plan where overall the terribly evil thing results in net good' gambit.

I get that when I bring up that 6 million children die of starvation every year. "Well, they must have died for a reason, because it was God's will."

I see a Universe that doesn't care about us and you see a Universe run by a guy who's making it look like a Universe that doesn't care about us to test our faith in him. But he's a nice guy.

Quote :

"This is kind of like saying well we shouldn't have killed Nazi's because it's evil."

Also, I'm not claiming myself, or the Allied powers to be omnipotent and benevolent. Every time God does evil shit, he has the power to achieve the exact same goals in a less evil manner. Tell me that doesn't make him evil.

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 5:39 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2011 5:37:32 PM

Okay, so this thread has sucked for the better part of 9 pages or so.


So let's make this interesting, shall we. Let's play a game of salvation vs damnation.



I'll post the person/sin or notable characteristic and you predict their afterlife given your understanding of Christianity.

Mother Teresa / Catholic
Tookie Wiliams / O.G. Killed some people, then found Jesus in Prison and was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on curbing gang violence.
Pope John Paul II / Celebrated Catholic Pope
Richard Dawkins / Hardcore Atheist. Kind of an asshole, but not evil.
Dalai Lama / Spiritual Tibetan Leader
Adolf Hitler / Was not fond of Jews
Judas / Asshole
Christian Homosexual / Likes Jesus, but also likes cock.
Baby African / Dies of AIDS at a young age
Peaceful person who never accepts Christ / Genuinely a good person, just not Christian.
Asshole who accepts Christ / Horrible person who repents and is "saved"



Feel free to add more.

8/1/2011 5:55:10 PM

Quote :

"Well, this would fall under more where God is just, he said he would destroy the wicked if they did not turn from good and that's what he did. For example, if those societies had continued in their depravity it may have had horrible ramifications for the future man, we cannot always know the mechanism behind the work of God, only that his will is always for good."

Either defend God or throw up your hands in despair. Try not to do both in the same paragraph; it's confusing.

I'm sorry, but your defense does not hold water. You realize that in some of the situations you described God ordered the execution of women and children, right? Sure, go ahead and say killing women and children might prevent further depravity. Now, let's remember the theistic answer to the problem of evil (why didn't God prevent the holocaust). Oh, I know. GOD GIVES PEOPLE FREE WILL. Meaning:
1. Nazis deserve the freedom to perform genocide.
2. Children of depraved societies don't deserve the freedom to choose their destinies because their society was corrupt. They deserve to die.

Then you go onto the "mysterious ways" argument and assert everything God does is just.

Why can't I say the same thing about Satan? Imagine someone writes a book asserting Satan is good and just. Sure, Satan killed a handful of people, but what if those people had continued in their depravity it may have had horrible ramifications for the future man, we cannot always know the mechanism behind the work of Satan, only that his will is always for good.

Quote :

"The slavery issue is more, slavery, had existed and was going to exist within Hebrew society, God wanted to place laws around servitude so that it was not abusive or exploitative."

I missed it. Are we talking about the all powerful creator or the universe here? The creator of the universe CREATED people and CREATED societies and couldn't stop them from having slaves except to offer some weak suggestions? Said suggestions are actual quite brutal:
-You can beat your slave with a rod as long as they don't die immediately.
-You can trick your slave into becoming your permanent property (after nailing his ear to a door of course).

You're saying a just god came up with this?

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 6:00 PM. Reason : dffghdfhgh]

8/1/2011 5:57:16 PM

Figure it out yourselves then.

8/1/2011 6:01:15 PM

We're not trying to be assholes. We just disagree.

It's called The Soap Box.

8/1/2011 6:08:51 PM

*takes his Bible and goes home*

8/1/2011 6:12:02 PM

The problem is I don't know enough about the Jewish ceremonial law and the OT to be able to explain and it and ensure that I am spreading sound doctrine.

8/1/2011 6:14:29 PM

go ahead and give my question about salvation/damnation a go. i'm genuinely curious to know what you think about those people given your understanding of christianity.

8/1/2011 8:24:22 PM

Quote :

"go ahead and give my question about salvation/damnation a go. i'm genuinely curious to know what you think about those people given your understanding of christianity."

God is the judge not me, Judas is damned, that is the only one I can say with Biblical assurance.

8/1/2011 8:33:51 PM

cop-out.



Just give it a go. I want to know what you think. You can add the caveat that you may be wrong. Just give it a shot.



And do you really think Judas is still in hell, paying for a sin he committed 2000 years ago? Seems harsh. He betrayed Jesus, he didn't kill the dude. Eternity seems like a big price to pay for identifying the J-man in public.


And another thing. If J.C. knew that Judas was going to betray him, then why does Judas have to suffer for eternity for something that he seemingly had no free-will over?

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 8:53 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2011 8:39:19 PM

Handing out infinite punishment for finite crimes? Now that's the kind of God I'd like to worship. Sure, it doesn't make sense to me, but it makes sense to Him, and that's what counts.

[Edited on August 1, 2011 at 8:50 PM. Reason : how I do know this is His will? because some ancient dudes said so]

8/1/2011 8:50:11 PM

So the Pope is okay with the gays now?

Also still NOT okay with women. What gives?

7/29/2013 12:00:53 PM

probably still thinks its a sin, but he is okay with them now. this pope seems to be a lot better so far, i like a lot of the things he's done.

7/29/2013 12:23:58 PM

Same reason they accepted Evolution and Big Bang cosmology. Society is (far too slowly) turning away from their dogma so they have to adapt or wither away.

7/29/2013 12:49:29 PM

their dogma doesn't conflict with the pope's statement on gay people

7/29/2013 12:51:47 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/pope-judge-gay-priests-19800245

Quote :

"Pope Francis reached out to gays, saying he won't judge priests for their sexual orientation in a remarkably open and wide-ranging news conference Monday as he returned from his first foreign trip. "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" Francis asked. "We shouldn't marginalize people for this. They must be integrated into society.""

That is a big change, when looking at the scale at which religion evolves, compared to the previous Pope who was against gay priests.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-on-gays-who-am-i-to-judge/?hpt=hp_t2

Quote :

"Martin noted that Francis also showed "greater compassion for divorced and remarried Catholics, a group that has long felt marginalized in the church, and called for a `deeper theology' on the role of women in the church.""

Quote :

""I believe this is a time of mercy, a change of epoch," the pope said when asked about divorce. He said the group of eight cardinals tasked with reform will explore the issue of whether divorcees can receive Communion, which they are currently barred from doing."

Creating a task force to consider policy changes around divorce seems like there might be some action to back up the talk.

7/29/2013 1:06:46 PM

i don't know too much about Catholicism, but isn't one of the basics of Christianity that people are inherently flawed, make mistakes, and find their way into god's good graces for asking forgiveness for their sins? To me it would make more sense of a church to REACH OUT to those (it deems) in need of forgiveness instead of ostracizing them.

7/29/2013 1:12:42 PM