Total posts: 1,044
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not really sure because some of your statements here cause me to wonder, you do know that I was referring to airplane travel, right?No, the soul is always present in the moment.... if you were to experience another plane it's not in the future but in the moment. The only difference being you are experiencing higher frequencies of existence. To soul travel or switch planes the soul is basically switching its attention, but it's still in the moment just like if you were to travel anywhere. This is also how spiritual experiences occur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Well, I could never I'm good conscience take on a slave, Roderick.
You probably couldn't afford it.
I left a bit of verse 46 off. The full text reads:"You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your [b]countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another."The final sentence makes clear foreign slaves are subject to different (and worse) treatment.All of the proof verses you've provide (with exception to the last) have been addressed in another thread (Link). As for Exodus 12:49, it refers to passover restriction. Including the passage before verse 49 provides all the context that could possibly be needed to understand it properly. I've bolded the law verse 49 references."48 A foreigner residing among you who wants to celebrate the Lord’s Passover must have all the males in his household circumcised; then he may take part like one born in the land. No uncircumcised male may eat it. 49 The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”
I'm guessing you think the rest of that verse contradicts all the references I gave about the oppression against foreigners.
The first problem I see is with your statement
The final sentence makes clear foreign slaves are subject to different (and worse) treatment.
You're implying that there was bad treatment (justified by the law) against Hebrew servants. This is a bit puzzling since your current emphasis seems to be on the favoring of Hebrews in contrast to foreigners. What references can you provide for me suggesting the bad treatment (albeit less than what a foreigner experiences) of Israelite servants?
I'm glad you placed that link, because I was going to address this in that thread, but may as well move any discussion on slavery here. At least with you. However, I just don't see anything addressed that makes any challenge against the verses I've given.
Foreigners not being allowed to take part in some ceremonies is certainly not abuse. Each nation, even today have their own laws pertaining to who or how one can become a citizen, and what a non-citizen's rights they have, and rights they don't have. Even the Israelites themselves were not allowed the privilege to enter into places considered holy that was reserved strictly for priests. This wasn't discrimination, and wasn't even segregation.
And no, that part of verse 46 you originally left out does not suggest justification for the abuse of foreigners. That command applied to both Israelites and foreigners. That particular verse emphasizes the prohibiting of abuse against their Israelite brethren. The placement as translated into the English language may appear to contradict, but is not unusual. For instance, in the book of John there's a number of references to a man (John) beloved of God. You may understand that these don't imply that God only loves John, or even loves him more than others. But some people have read it that way. If John is the author, it could be easy to understand why that statement shows up in that Gospel.
I have to admit, some of the things you've stated probably need clarification for my sake.
From what I understand, you feel that since the word foreigner can potentially apply simply to a stranger or sojourner, not necessarily someone from a different nation, that the law stating if a slave runs away, that the law demanding his protection cannot be someone from a different nation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It's hard to tell all the social norms surrounding slavery and how 'bad' it was to be a slave. No dout there were good and bad msaters everywhere. I note this law in Hamurrabis code:176. And if a slave of the palace or a slave of the freeman take the daughter of a man (gentleman); and if, when he takes her, she enter into the house of the slave of the palace or the slave of the freeman with the dowry of her father's house; if from the time that they join hands, they build a house and acquire property; and if later on the slave of the palace or the slave of the freeman die, the daughter of the man shall receive her dowry, and they shall divide into two parts whatever her husband and she had acquired from the time they joined hands; the owner of the slave shall receive one-half and the daughter of the man shall receive one-half for her children.Cleaely male slaves were permitted to marry the daughters of free men. That implies that slaves were not dehumanised. Nor was slavery always permanent: "117. If a man be in debt and sell his wife, son or daughter, or bind them over to service, for three years they shall work in the house of their purchaser of master; in the fourth year they shall be given their freedom."I don't know if a slave was better of in Babylon or Israel.. it probably depended on the master becuase the rules (even if they ere always followed which is doubtful) aren't substantially different. In all probability most slaves in the AME were much better off than the planation slaves in the ultra-Christian ante-bellum Southern states of America.
But all you did was reiterate the similarities.
Again, yes, there were similarities. There's similarities even in recent history with wartime practices. The American soldiers taking Japanese wives during WWII. Of course that was promoted as a rescue of women against an oppressive male-centric society, but same principle. The women may not have been forced, but were lured into promises of a better life.
I think you're mixing up the idea that any given master could be a task master, with the actual laws prohibiting abuse. And that's not at all what I'm talking about. To put some light into this idea, who's better off, a woman living in the U.S. or Britain? Or a woman living in male-centric Iran?
We would more likely say one living in the U.S. or Britain. However, if a woman in Iran had a decent spouse, and was relatively high on the social ladder, her life could be immeasurably better than an American or British woman living in the freest parts of the world who is being stalked and terrorized by a jealous husband, former husband, boyfriend, co-worker, neighbor, etc.
In other words, yes, an Israelite owner of a servant could be potentially worse than any Egyptian slave master. But this is why these laws were in place. There was no guarantee that any one individual will have a natural humanitarian tendency.
Are you actually claiming there's no significant difference between the treatment of slaves between Israel and the rest of the NME?
I think it's obvious that the Hebrew's laws are not divine revelations but entirely typical of the norms of the age. How could it be anyhthing else becauase there are no gods!
Replace gods with creator. Can you make that very same statement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, but you can buy foreign slaves and bequeath them to your children.How do you square that circle?
I would say this is similar to household butlers, gentlemen's gentlemen, etc., that sometimes serve a couple of family generations.
The key here is that the author is explaining that this is optional for the purchaser, meaning, they may not want to keep the servant beyond a given period of time. However, the master has an obligation to see that the servant is taken care of. The potential for any violation of a master would include abandonment.
What is evident is that a foreign servant can leave. And they're not obligated to any 7 year stretch. They can leave if they're abused, and they can leave if they become wealthy enough to provide for themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Please refresh my memory.I believe all of your scriptural references applied to bond-servants and did not specifically prohibit chattel-slavery.
Exodus 21:16
He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surelybe put to death.
Pretty serious. Wouldn't you say?
Or do you not think this verse applies to chattel slavery, which generally involves involuntary abduction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
They would only be set free from the death penalty. At least one of the penalties involved is that even if the servant lived, he would be without a servant, and probably face financial loss.Nah, not too bad - if your master's beatings killed you too quickly, he would be punished and if you were maimed in some way (lost eye, lost tooth, etc.) you'd be set free! Undoubtedly, this is the product of a benevolent mind.
The thing is, they had judges like we do today. There was more detail involved with judging matters of any conflict between Israelites, including foreigners. So, it wasn't a situation where an Israelite beat his slave, and the authority looks for a convenient excuse to let the Israelite go free.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
To anyone who holds slavery in the Bible was nothing more than temporary indentured servitude, I ask:Would you be my 'indentured servant' as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46?Leviticus 25:44-46 New American Standard Bible (NASB)44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have [a]produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves
Yes, I would be your indentured servant as defined by Leviticus 25:44-46. I might be more concerned with eventually being deported than anything else. I would attempt to take advantage of the prospect of becoming a citizen, become wealthy, and, God forbid, acquire an Israelite servant for 7 years if circumstances required it.
Leviticus 19:34 New International Version (NIV)
34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
Exodus 23:9 New International Version (NIV)
9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
Exodus 22:21 New International Version (NIV)
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
Deuteronomy 10:19 New International Version (NIV)
19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.
19 And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.
Exodus 12:49 King James Version (KJV)
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
Can it be any clearer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLE CONDEMNS SLAVERY IN ALL OF ITS FORMS? Y/NI'm going to guess... NO!ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR (NON-ISRAELITE) FOREIGN SLAVES ARE PERFECTLY MORAL AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED AND OR PRACTICED TODAY? Y/NI'm going to guess... NO?ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR NATIVE ISRAELITE BOND-SERVANTS ARE PERFECTLY MORAL AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED AND OR PRACTICED TODAY? Y/NI'm going to guess... YES?
Yes, the Bible condems chattel slavery.
I'm against chattel/new world slavery.
I'm not against the military, which owns it's soldiers. Most military recruitment is voluntary, just like Israelite voluntary servitude, and voluntary servitude in Egypt associated with the construction of the pyramids (if that's how it was built). It's a good system because it's an alternative to another form of slavery (being owned), imprisonment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Semantics is the linguistic and philosophical study of meaning, in language, programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. It is concerned with the relationship between signifiers—like words, phrases, signs, and symbols—and what they stand for, their denotation. [LINK]SERIOUSLY, YOU DON'T THINK THE MEANING OF WORDS IS IMPORTANT?
Of course I do. The meaning of words is very important. That's why I can't understand for the life of me why some people disregard Hebrew and Greek translation.
The actual word referring to slavery is in Jeremiah, with no Hebrew translation. This verse makes a distinction between oppressive slavery, and servitude.
Jeremiah 2:14 Is Israel a servant, a slave by birth? Why then has he become plunder?
The other reference to actual slavery distinct from servitude is in Revelation.
Revelation 18:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
The Greek word is Soma, which means body, bodily, slave, This would be strictly a bondage form of slavery.
Most of the references to slavery in the OT means servant which is the Hebrew word ebed, which means bondage, bondman, servant, bond servant.
My challenge to S1 concerning semantics was assuming just because Israelites purchased servants from a slave market (see reference to Jeremian 2:14), didn't mean they were to be treated like slaves per Jeremiah 2:14, and Revelation 18:13.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
We atheists - or some of us - do like to point out that the God that Christians worship is not all sweetness and light! I think if you asked an ancient Hebrew to describe his god in one word, that word would not be 'Nice'!In those times gods were beings of immense power who could use that power for or against individuals or a nation. They had to be kept on-side by performing rituals and sacrifice. If the rituals were performed correctly the god would avert disasters and bring victory in war. Convervsely disaster and defeat were due to laxness in the perfomance of those rituals - at least according to the priests!Hence we get passages like this:Joshua 10: 11 As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.Of course the writer of Joshua approves of that - it was the job of a tribal god like YHWH to 'smite enemies'.It's imporant to bear in mind the Hebrews and yhwh are not exceptional - they are typical of the peoples and their gods of the peridand region. We have the law-codes of the babylonans and hittites and they are practically identical to the Hebrews.
There are grains of truth in what you say.
First off, naturally there are similarities. The Israelites were a cultural product of the ancient near middle east. The reason we know about the similarities is because of extensive study on the region in conjunction with Bible study. And that's how we know the differences. They were, alongside similarities, differences. If the differences are minimal, it's okay because they are also profound. An example would be the foreigners right to leave their master if they were oppressed. And to be housed by whomever they seek help from. And the potential to become a citizen, become wealthy, etc.
The grain of truth I was referring to was the Israelites initial perception of God which coincided with the view of gods from the surrounding nations. The "Golden Calf" was a picture of the god of the nations. The common god-theme among the nations was a national god that didn't require personal relationship. More of a national mascot god.
It was also common for nations to have a mediator (priest) who handled the more substantial communication with the god of the nation. This was a role that Moses played, but was really meant to be for all of Israel if they weren't so focused on having the common national god everyone else had.
"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing.
Yes, this was directed at Jerusalem, but obviously included nomadic Israel.
Psalm 51:16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
The author understood that rituals in themselves were not of any interested to the creator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure why you left this part out..."they retain the right of redemption after they have sold themselves. One of their relatives may redeem them: 49An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in their clan may redeem them. Or if they prosper, they may redeem themselves. 50They and their buyer are to count the time from the year they sold themselves up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for their release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired worker for that number of years. 51If many years remain, they must pay for their redemption a larger share of the price paid for them. 52If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, they are to compute that and pay for their redemption accordingly. 53They are to be treated as workers hired from year to year; you must see to it that those to whom they owe service do not rule over them ruthlessly.So basically it lays out certain protections for ISRAELITE bond-servants (don't "abuse" them and release them after 7 years).WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLE CONDEMNS SLAVERY IN ALL OF ITS FORMS? Y/NARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR (NON-ISRAELITE) FOREIGN SLAVES ARE PERFECTLY MORAL AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED AND OR PRACTICED TODAY? Y/NARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BIBLICAL GUIDELINES FOR NATIVE ISRAELITE BOND-SERVANTS ARE PERFECTLY MORAL AND SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED AND OR PRACTICED TODAY? Y/N
I didn't purposely leave anything out, but posted what I thought was relevant. There was no need to post all of what you did.
The reason I posted that specific scripture was simply to show that a foreigner (the one who supposedly didn't have rights) could eventually become wealthy himself, and have an Israelite work for him as a servant. That certainly defies any notion that a foreigner, purchased as a servant or not is treated like a new world slave.
And at least some of it is practiced today.
The military owns people. I've heard the argument that since it's voluntary, it's not the same thing. Well, that person who made the argument probably forgot about the draft. And for the Israelite, their servitude was voluntary as well.
The Israelite put himself in that position because he either stole, or damaged someone's property, and rather than go to prison he could opt voluntary servitude. This is of course similar to today's community service option for inmates as an alternative to doing time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I may not be sure what your argument. Is it that since the foreigners have an opportunity to become a part of the nation of Israel, they are not really foreigners?This was in regards to Deuteronomy 23:15-16. In the context set by the previous verses (related to war), enemy slaves were not to be returned so that they might come to accept YHWH in which case these individuals could come to be part of the nation of Israel.
I assume you're placing a lot of emphasis on "foreigner", but it can be understood as sojourner, stranger, or guest. Was there anything you would like to add to this? It seems very similar to the above verse except it was in regards to strangers (potential converts?) and was addressed to judges rather than soldiers, but I'm no Biblical scholar. ;-)
I've placed emphasis on "foreigner" because that seems to be the topic's target at the moment.
Listen, before we run this predictable path which leaves you feeling abused,
If it's predictable it's probably because we've discussed it before. Your concern is commendable though.
you should know I do not hold the Bible (or Christianity) to be without noble sentiment or beauty.
But highly unnecessary.
My point is simply that important concepts in Christianity (eg. favored race - "God's chosen people", slavery - "slave to Jesus", monarchy - "Kings of Kings") run in direct contrast to those of America (eg. equality, liberty, democracy).
Favored race is a false view of related scripture. So is your reference to "God's chosen people". If "GSP" meant what you seem to think it does, Christians wouldn't be evangelizing. We'd keep it to ourselves, because we're special and chosen, and you're not (being facetious of course). Here's a sobering verse.
Matthew 20:1-16 New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard
20 “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. 2 He agreed to pay them a denarius[a] for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3 “About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4 He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5 So they went.
“He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing. 6 About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
7 “‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’
8 “When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’
9 “The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. 10 So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11 When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12 ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
13 “But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14 Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15 Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’
16 “So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”
If you were one of the workers who came later, and I was the one complaining and wanting more money than you, you (the atheist) would be in the more favorable light in this parable than myself. I (the Christian) would be the one who was humbled and put in my place.
Many people, for instance, much prefer being a slave to Jesus than a slave to drugs. It baffles me how people can't make the slavery-servant connection. The term slavery was not politically incorrect back then. A king is simply a leader. They didn't have presidents and prime ministers back then. Having a king didn't necessitate an oppressive government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I doubt that the specific episodes are historical, but the ethical framework of the text is the same whether they happened or not.t was a different time with different attitudes - killing the men and enslaving the women in war was the norm; the text reflects the customs of its time even if the specifics are dubious.As for the parallel to Nigeria, the mass kidnapping of girls to serve as 'wives' by Boko Haram still goes on. If it can happen in the 21st century, it could certainly occur then.
It certainly did go on back then. The practices of the Israelites were specifically designed to set them apart from the other nations. Their law demanding the showing of mercy, acting humane, etc. was the intent. It doesn't make sense to 3RU7AL, and for a good reason.
Another NT meets OT.
1 Peter 2:9 King James Version (KJV)
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
Just like the NT church, the OT Hebrew clan were to be a peculiar people as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
No. I mentioned him because that's who I'm familiar with. I disagree with some of his views. Distasteful is not really an accurate term in this case.Are you dismissing every other name mentioned because you find Mr. Campolo's views distasteful? That's not reasonable, if so
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
China has religious freedom to. But it has to fall under strict government control. The humanists aren't a whole lot different except they are not in power fortunately.The society that is 'being pushed for' is one where everyone has religious freedom...the same religious freedom (including Christians).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
As I said earlier, I don't think that 'Christian Nationalists' really want to impose Christian values. They want to turn the clock back to an imaginary golden age (about 1955!) when things were much simpler! I suspect that, in reality, 1955 was pretty bad, but in mind ofthe CNs is the picture of an America of happy families wuith the man the unisputed head of the house, his wife a dutiful home-maker and the kids well-scubbed and respectful.
You're stereotyping a bit here. It's sort of like saying all Brits greet each other by saying"Pip pip cheerio, and all that sort of rubbish".
We've had people like that (but I'm sure you've had people who did say "pip pip cheerio").
There was a famous minister named Jerry Falwell who emphasized that theme. But most people today want to appear young, contemporary, up-to-date.
The whole "Life was simpler back then" has been replaced by "TV shows back then were better, funnier, etc., than now". Or "music was better back then". Or "cars were better back then".
The 60's are the newer 50's. And the 60's it could be argued was wilder than what goes on today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
In rare cases (only the wealthy could have purchased a slave), the foreign slave was to be treated as a servant. Semantics are not really necessary here.First off, it was not servants that were bought from the heathen nations, but slaves. Secondly, the Israelites acting within their own laws without accounting for laws of the neighboring nations doesn't mean it was acceptable in a universal sense. It would most certainly depend on which nation was telling the story as to whether it was proper and legitimate.
What do you mean by universal sense? There was no United Nations back then. And there isn't even a universal sense today. If the Kingdom of Tibet had a problem with Israel purchasing servants from the foreign slave market, and that nullifies their universal legality in purchasing a servant from the slave market, it wouldn't be any different than North Korea viewing us as being in a global violation. Every nation has it's enemy who doesn't approve of what they do.
You're trying to justify our taking prisoners because we are more humane than other nations today, and in past history. We still held people captive. If it's wrong to hold anyone captive, then we are violation as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
This is not to be understood universally, as if all servants that flee from their masters, though without any sufficient cause or colour of justice, might be detained from them by any person to whom they fled for refuge, for this is apparently contrary to all the laws of religion, and justice, and charity, and would open a door to infinite disorders and mischiefs; [LINK]
I'm a bit confused. Is that link supposed to support your claim?
It's not to be understood universally, because it was only practiced within Israel.
Yes, the practice was unusual. That's what they were in essence called to be. I think what people are doing is trying to add a human nature twist to the texts which allows for many unwarranted assumptions.
Here's another unusual biblical claim to chew on.
Leviticus 25:47
"'If a foreigner residing among you becomes rich and any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to the foreigner or to a member of the foreigner's clan,
Who does one think these foreigners are? Japanese businessmen?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A modern POW is generally a combatant and would be repatriated at the end of hostilities. The US did not have the war aim of of killimg all the men and enslaving the women!
My apologies. I read your post wrong.
If you think these passages are fictional, then these various arguments are rendered void. If Stan Lee says Captain America captured The Red Skull, we can't really argue.
The nations, all of them within the promised land, according to scripture were out to demolish the Israelite nation. So it wouldn't be any different than the U.S. bombing Hiroshima. Some people are anti-American for reasons like these.
If you think it did, or may have happened, then you have to figure they must be lying in many passages that claim severe penalties for actions like rape, kidnapping, and general oppression.
We see something similar happening in Nigeria today
I don't think so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Either Roderick doesn't know this law only applied to Israelites (and not unbelieving foreigners) or he is being dishonest in trying to equate all slavery in the Bible to indentured servitude.
Well, at least you let him know that there is a citation..
Now you can show me how, or why you think this only applies to Israelites
And, do you think this verse is one of those wink wink, nudge nudge scenarios? They wrote it, but don't really mean it?
Exodus 23:9
"Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Deut 23.15-16
15Slaves who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. 16They shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your towns, wherever they please; you shall not oppress them.
15Slaves who have escaped to you from their owners shall not be given back to them. 16They shall reside with you, in your midst, in any place they choose in any one of your towns, wherever they please; you shall not oppress them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Being that the cake shop owner, floral business owner, and wedding photographer were minding their own business, never wanted publicity, were friends with the same sex couple (the floral business owner), made clear that they were not denying business based on sexual orientation, only refused to design their product specifically for a same sex union, were harassed, put on public display, it's clear that they were the victims.Religious freedom does not give anyone the right to marginalize others, so there is no violation of religious freedom in asking for better.
One thing that really stands out in the general debate of this topic, is double-standard. For a group to protest a relatively unseen statue of Jesus on a ski resort, and not protest a Buddhist owned meditation program introduced into public schools, that's a huge double-standard.
What is clear is that atheist activist groups are attempting to push for (influence) Americans away from religion. They feel that Christians need to change their mind on issues like homosexuality. These groups are not remotely interested in preserving religious freedom. The constitution is used merely as a tool to try and adjust it to fit the society that they're pushing for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I most definitely need to review other sources. These sources that use such terminology are deceptive. The tendency is for them seems to be to accuse Christians attempting to influence society as being those who want to force Christianity into society.Here is anarticle from Religious News Service. The terms (with the exception of "Christian Nationalists") is softer, but the message is the same. Here is another from Baptist News Global: LINKWhat are religiously copy-pasta laws?"In God We Trust" bills introduced in 6 states all this year.
I'll look at the article when I get a chance.
As far as "In God We Trust" on bills.
Having that inscription on a bill does nothing for anyone. It doesn't make the unit more valuable. If it's a one dollar bill, it's only going to give a dollars worth of fuel at the pump no matter what it says.
Simply put, rather than this being a conspiracy, many Christians feel that anything that was once accepted and thus removed, like Christian slogans should not have been removed because all they do is display a cultural heritage. I don't personally think the slogan should be mandatory. I don't think the slogan was even original. Something eventually added on. So yeah, I don't agree with everything they propose. But, they are hardly conspiracy theory material.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Is it safe to assume you're mulling over the rest of the post from which this came?In short, the US has agreements with other countries regarding prisoners of war, thus captivity is legal (provided certain conditions are met) and not to be confused with kidnapping.Is it safe to assume you're mulling over the rest of the post from which this came?
Not really. This is what stuck out, so I commented. I'll go back and look at what else you stated.
This is a terrible argument by the way. Were the Hebrews breaking the law when they purchased foreign servants?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
These Christians understand it as I do: LINK
I'm well acquainted with Tony Campolo. He at one point became very critical of the Christian church. And has taken on unorthodox views. He's what one would call a liberal Christian. But, he probably is right in some things. Some things I probably would agree with him on.
This wouldn't be one of them though. It's a name chosen to accuse high profile Christians of pushing for a theocracy. And I think I discussed this with you as well. It doesn't make sense. There's never been a Christian theocracy. It's either been a denominational theocracy, or a specific church theocracy. This is something Christians in America had opposed from the beginning until now.
Unfortunately Campolo and company just blindly adapt the word. It's really very silly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
You do realize this is a resolution and not a law, right? What issue do you have with it?
Yes, but so what?
My issue parallels this.
More than two dozen doctors, counselors, activists, and other Christian leaders signed a letter condemning the resolution, which they said violates religious freedom. “Religious leaders have the constitutionally protected right to teach religious doctrine in accordance with their faith, and politicians have no right to tell clergy what is moral, dictate the content of their sermons, or instruct them in religious counseling,” they wrote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I think you're giving the wrong argument. They weren't commanded to murder virgins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
To be honest, I'm not sure what you need another source for, you obviously acceptreligiously themed copy-pasta laws are a thing. Also, "Christian Nationalism" is actually in the title of this thread, but here at post 110 you reject the term?I feel as though you're not being intellectually honest. I don't want to waste a lot of my time if you are only interested in what jibes with your beliefs and not what's actually true.For what it's worth, rights cannot negate the rights of others. Freedom of religion does not include using government to advertise beliefs. It does not include treating homosexuals (or any group of humans) differently than others. It does not include the freedom from criticism. It simply means you are free to believe and worship as you please, (so long as that doesn't take away the rights of others) and governmenthas no religious beliefs.
I most definitely need to review other sources. These sources that use such terminology are deceptive. The tendency is for them seems to be to accuse Christians attempting to influence society as being those who want to force Christianity into society. I think we've had this conversation before at the other forum (I'm assuming you're SkepticAlone). The humanists are doing the same thing. Atheist activists do the same thing. You don't think the FFRF (who I think you're a member of) is doing the same thing? What about The Atheist Experience? The most obnoxious talk show format I've ever seen. I thought sports talk hosts were bad. They're attempting to influence it's listeners by talking over the caller, trying to make the caller look as stupid as possible, play like they're so upset at the views of the caller even though they targeted the caller by what he tells the screener. They (admittedly) pick and choose which caller by who they think will be more scandalous.
And the usage of the term Christian Nationalism further discredits them. I most definitely oppose it. What are religiously copy-pasta laws?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
So then the United States is guilty of kidnapping whenever we capture a prisoner of war?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
None of what you posted contradicts the following.Leviticus 25:44-4644 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45 Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46 You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.Case closed.
First off, no, it's not closed. You're forgetting that a foreign slave (servant) can leave their master if there were any abuse. And not only that, someone else would be required to put them up. You just can't overlook that. If abuse is not allowed, then the servant scenario for the foreigner is not an intolerable situation. A foreign servant can also become wealthy themselves, and actually have a Hebrew servant if the scenario called for it. And the Hebrew servant would be under the same 7 year rule. In fact, probably, all texts considered, the foreign servant may have less restrictions than the Hebrew servant in terms of a mandatory serving time.
The Hebrews that were able to purchase a foreign servant had to be wealthy. And that meant an ideal living arraingment for the foreign servant. The master was required to take care of the foreign servant. Most of the time the foreign servant probably preferred to stay, because his lifestyle compared to remaining a slave in the market, or being sold to abusive foreigners would be far better.
The mistake people make is to assume the servants in each scenario wants out, when most likely it was the polar opposite. This was the ancient middle east. They didn't have missions, flop-houses, homeless shelters, the YMCA, or former college buddies that can put them up.
What you're doing here is fairly common when arguing about biblical slavery. The argument often starts out with all biblical references to slavery (servanthood) being evil. So sometimes when the Hebrew servant scenario is explained, the person just moves on to the next servant situation, (like the foreign slave, the slave beaten by a rod, etc.). So then the question becomes why are they moving on? Have they agreed that the Hebrew servant scenario is not an example of new world type slavery, and thus move on to the foreign slave where they think the same argument still applies?
Why have you moved on? You say this scenario is a case closer. Have you abandoned that position concerning the punished with a rod servant?
The Hebrews that were able to purchase a foreign servant had to be wealthy. And that meant an ideal living arraingment for the foreign servant. The master was required to take care of the foreign servant. Most of the time the foreign servant probably preferred to stay, because his lifestyle compared to remaining a slave in the market, or being sold to abusive foreigners would be far better.
The mistake people make is to assume the servants in each scenario wants out, when most likely it was the polar opposite. This was the ancient middle east. They didn't have missions, flop-houses, homeless shelters, the YMCA, or former college buddies that can put them up.
What you're doing here is fairly common when arguing about biblical slavery. The argument often starts out with all biblical references to slavery (servanthood) being evil. So sometimes when the Hebrew servant scenario is explained, the person just moves on to the next servant situation, (like the foreign slave, the slave beaten by a rod, etc.). So then the question becomes why are they moving on? Have they agreed that the Hebrew servant scenario is not an example of new world type slavery, and thus move on to the foreign slave where they think the same argument still applies?
Why have you moved on? You say this scenario is a case closer. Have you abandoned that position concerning the punished with a rod servant?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The reason I brought them up is because it's a situation similar to severe incidences involving punishment in the O.T. An alleged sweeter version of God doesn't fit the scenario here. What is similar is that the followers of Christ in the book of Acts were in a similar "vow" situation (in this case discipleship) that resulted in severe chastisement. This is why Christ suggested rather strongly that believers count the cost of discipleship.
The end times cult thing is just speculation. We can't assume they all ignored Christ's proclamation that no one knows the end time. Paul wasn't concerned about it to the effect that he wouldn't bother with evangelizing. We can't assume this on any other known disciples at that time. There was no doubt, as there is today, people who think the end times will be in their life time. During WWII many Christians were sure of this. But Christians sacrifice their lives for purer reasons than thinking life will just shortly come to an end anyway. Paul's focus was on reaching the Jews (and non-Jews) with the Gospel. We can't assume he was the only one who's focus was more on others than himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
What do you make of the NT incident involving Ananias and Sapphira?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
No, collecting virgins for the purpose of sex (and child bearing) wouldn't be mitigated by calling them wives. But that's not what they were given permission to do. Kidnapping, rape, sexual slavery, are serious crimes in Biblical law, mostly punishable by death.Is collecting virgins for the purpose of sex (and childbearing) mitigated by calling them "wives"? Quite plainly - this is sexual slavery. There is no context where this is acceptable.
The problem is you're trying to make a claim about an event you probably don't even think happened, and then base it on man's animalistic behavior as a law allowing for sexual slavery. Kind of the wink, wink, nudge, nudge thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm not familiar specifically with project blitz. But the push for religious freedom protection is valid. This is pretty much a response to the incidences like the bakery in Colorado where the business owners were on the defensive, and the real victims.
These bills they're referring to are non-aggressive which is how they're made to sound. Like if they were bills based on Bible morals prohibiting pre-marital sex, or same sex activity. Allowing teachers to display the 10 commandments is non-aggressive for instance. Now there may very well be bills they're trying to push that are just not feasible today, but nothing to cry "conspiracy" over. I think a number of evangelicals feel we should have the right to practice what was practiced in early American history. But making certain things mandatory would be a problem I would agree. But the FFRF do the same things, and lose cases because some of their demands are unconstitutional.
But, I would need a more neutral source to fnd out just how aggressive these bills really are. I don't trust sites that use terms like the Christian far-right, conservative watch, religious watch, religious far-right, etc.
Christian Nationalists is an invalid term.
It is a fact the stigmatization of homosexuals and transsexuals contributes to suicide and depression in these groups.
Any article that states that Hawaii is an island paradise, I will agree with on that point no matter how much I disagree with the overall message from that site. I understand that there's something within the article you agree with. But that's not what I'm asking. Are these people in the right? Are they acting within constitutional boundaries?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Jacob didn't exactly suffer as a consequence of his dishonesty, did he?
I think he did. For a time he faced horrific fear of facing Esau again. And although he was granted a blessing for his tenacity in wrestling the angel, he was given a handi-cap (a limp) for the rest of his life.
Even King David, a man after God's heart had to face consequences from his lifestyle, like not being allowed to build the House of God. And Moses didn't get to see the promised land.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
I agree with a lot of what you're saying.
Society sort of constructs a dividing line on who is good, and who is evil. And the line can be fairly fine, but falling on one side can cause a landslide.
An example would be the comedian Kramer from "Seinfeld". He's an evil racist because of his attempt to incorporate racial humor in his act (not that it wasn't extremely distasteful). But other comics like Lisa Lampanelli could say pretty much the same things, and get applauded for it.
Also, a certain amount of male chauvinism can be considered cool. But when it involves groping then that person has cross the line.
Also, a certain amount of male chauvinism can be considered cool. But when it involves groping then that person has cross the line.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
REally? Where exactly is the "detailed instruction book on Hebrew laws"??????????????????
There isn't one book that I know of. Rather, multiple books referred to concerning near middle eastern history. Part of Bible study involves regional history in that time period. We have Rabbinic exegesis to glean from.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That seems to be where most people tend to go with this sort of argument.What are you proposing specifically? I'm just not sure how adding a "non-physical-soul" (hidden variable) into the mix actually CHANGES anything.
I'm not really proposing anything. I'm just wondering why the subject of having a soul would necessitate an ancient rule book.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Well, the Isley Brothers, Marvin Gaye, the Tempations, etc., = soul
Lenny Kravitz = In the spirit of saving time and character space I'll use the acronym "AS" (artificial soul).
But, maybe I shouldn't say that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
The response I get from Christians istypically, "They were harsh rules for a harsh time. But that time has passed." They also often dip into "who am I to judge." Such evils were certainly a fact of ancient times, but it's hard to imagine there was any time when genocide or taking virgins as slaves was necessary. Some things are never okay.But the importance for me is on whether the Christian believes that the rules and values reflected in those passages are still valid and applicable today. If so, that Christian must be my ideological enemy, as they would stand for everything I deplore -- if not, we can be allies in values and ethics. I must admit the latter is the case the vast majority of the time.
The virgins weren't taken as slaves. They were taken to become wives. And the command to wipe out their enemies was only given because these nations were out to wipe Israel off the planet. The funny thing is, every accusation aimed at the O.T., one way or the other we practice ourselves. Genocide is no exception. Had Japan continued their assault campaigns we would have wiped them all out. The bombing of Hiroshima was horrible. But it only ended there because their assault campaigns (to the degree of the attack on Pearl Harbor) discontinued. Many people would say the assault on Hiroshima was evil, but how many of them moved to a different country due to our wickedness?
And it wasn't just that it was harsh times. Just like we can't base civilian laws today on laws that apply to the military. At the time of the Exodus, they were pretty much a nomadic army. It was necessary for very strict laws just like in today's military. Of course their laws were also strict on who could fight in battle. It was not for women and children like we see today in other parts of the world.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
You @'d me with this so I'll assume you're interested in my return mindfarts. Have you read the Treaty of Tripoli by the founding fathers?"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
I think this and other extracts fit with your statement reasonably well. Imo many of the central founding fathers leaned more toward deism and theistic rationalism than mainstream Christianity, which probably explains their secular values, but they certainly knew America was a Christian culture and would have said American values are compatible with Christian values because it would have been political suicide to say otherwise. It still is.
This was addressed to a Muslim nation that was concerned about an historical repeat of early religious wars with European theocracies. This wasn't an address to the nation telling them "Hey, we aint a Christian nation". Or for future (contemporary) Americans to make claim the FF's were deists.
One of the reasons people claim the FF's were deists is because they didn't use contemporary evangelical lingo. They would not use the name of Jesus randomly. They were careful about it because their view was that the sacred name shouldn't be thrown out casually in order to avoid using his name in vain.
For instance, George Washington is rarely recorded to have used the name. One of the exceptions was when he is quoted using Jesus' name to an Native American leader. So they probably avoided using the name amongst each other as it may suggest evangelizing someone who is already a professed Christian. Where the name of Jesus was strongly used was by the various ministers who preached Sunday mornings in the capitol. The famous founding fathers were not ministers, so they would have refrained from speaking as one.
Another example of the restraint of using Jesus' name, we never see people of European descent named Jesus. It's considered a dishonor. Sacriligious. But in Latin American culture many males are named Jesus, because to them it's honoring Jesus.
But to try and convey hoe silly this whole FF/deism thing is, the contemporary view now among many is that the Christians were the peasants, farmers, common folk. And somehow magically the deists filled all the political positions. Unfortunately, society was so different at that time that people today can make their own interpretation. The OP struggled just to acknowledge that there were any Christan FF's. He had to emphasize "some were". One gets the sense that it's painful for some to acknowledge America's Christian heritage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
What is easier? It depends on the person probably. Some people who love their family enough may find it easier to pluck their eye out. That scriptureWe are doing the EXACT same thing. Which is more possible, I ask you: plucking out one's eye (which your central nervous system, at least a properly functioning one, will not allow you to do), or hating one's family? How do I reliably tell which is hyperbole in the bible, that's the question. How do we both, or all, arrive at the same correct answer?
is not an instruction to hate one's family though.
How do we come to the conclusion as to what's hyperbole, and what isn't? A lot of study, both scripture, and near middle-eastern history, and logic and reason.
What you don't want to do is make a judgment at first read, assuming it means what you translate through a contemporary eye lens. Especially if you have a prejudicial bent.
Does anyone, do you think, use this "hate your family if you love Jesus and they offend you or him" verse as NON-hyperbole? Say, fundamentalist parents who sever ties with a gay child? Why don't they know it's hyperbole? It doesn't sit well with me because while I'm convinced no one can pluck out their own eye, and therefore an order to do see seems like exaggeration for dramatic effect, I DO know that people can hate their own families, and therefore it is not, at least in the same order of magnitude, the same as 'pluck out your eye.' That's how everyone assesses hyperbole, except if it's in the bible and youdon't like it, you say it's hyperbole. How do I know, for example, that Jesus rising from the dead ISN'T hyperbole? Shouldn't GOD be concerned about the understanding of all of his 21st centurychildre? How do you know you're right?I love when people say Luke was a physician. He went to the same medicalschool as Dr. Dre.
This was actually addressed in the "What is hate thread". I would review that thread, and then maybe we can continue.
I'm not familiar with Dr. Dre.
Do the words as written, not as meant according to Rod, contradict each other? Again it's hate your family, love your family, if you boil it down.
You lost me again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Who are Christian nationalists? Those who attempt to inject Christianity into government arguing Christianity was instrumental to the Constitution.Notions found in the 10 commandments are not unique or new to Christianity. If murder was not considered bad before religion then I doubt we would be having this conversation since mankind predates it. No god belief is needed to accept some actions cause more harm than benefits. So, it's not a matter of Christian values vs. humanistic values- it's simply humanistic values.Furthermore, some commandments are completely contradictory to the government established by our founders. For example, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is incongruent with religious freedom.
Where is attempting to inject Christianity into government happening?
And what is your opinion on this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
When we travel by plane we travel into the future, albeit only a fraction of a moment. not enough to notice, but during that fraction of a moment, it's a very real experience. We're not simply observing the moment from an observational point afar. I don't see why it would be any different if one were to travel the speed of light, and travel into the future.To make a long story short time travel would only be looking at what took place, kinda like the Christmas Carols where you can look back in time. You can't change anything of course but you can change the Karma of the individual by adjusting behavior and attitude in the now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not sure if this is what you're referring to, but there is a theory that if someone went back in time, something they might try to change will only correct itself like GPS. Like if someone prevents a person from going to the race track where he lost all his money. So instead of losing it at the racetrack, he loses it in a bad investment.Not sure what point you're trying to make TBH, time travel is only possible through the causal plane. And even then you are dealing with things that already happened. That can't be changed. In true time travel circumstances can be changed, but once something has happened it can't be changed, only corrected. So if you were to make it in any travel of time you could only help not correct.
The problem with this idea is that when he prevented the person from going to the track, there were a number of other dynamics that had to change. He would still kick that pebble out of place that could change the course of world history. So this intrusion into history would require an endless correcting of itself.
Reincarnation is based on what you do and the effects it has on creation,if you want to change something it must be done in the present.
I agree that we can only change something in the present. But I don't see any law, natural or spiritual that suggests that if the creator removed restraint on time travel, or gave us the ability to do so, the time traveler would exist in a very real setting whether traveling backward or forward. Why wouldn't it be real?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Why would the soul have to exist before the physical body? Are you saying we never had a beginning? Or, we weren't created?If I'm a created being, then I have no reason to believe that the human body I now occupy isn't the very first form of life I've been given. That prior to this life, I just didn't exist until God breathed the breath of life in my current form.If you believe in the soul then you know God didn't breathe into your current form, the soul exists prior to the physical body period, I don't think there is any argument about that. If then it is true that you existed before the birth of the physical body then it is true you have a soul....which existed before the birth of the physical body, then it is true you reincarnated. You may not like that term but it is what it is.
You can't time travel but you can revisit experiences. While you can look back in time and revisit certain experiences you can't time travel in a way that it is reality, where you are creating things. The only time travel possible is that which has already happened, this can be revisited in the causal plane, the Akashic Records. Look up the Akashic Records.
Or in the hands of yourself. You are a savior, that's how cause and effect work. You are the living truth.
I may not be a hundred percent clear on your meaning, but I would acknowledge that we do have a part to play.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
God knew there would be unrepentant sinners,In other words, god creates these people to live solely for their end to be torturing them forever. Cool justice!
If that were the case, they wouldn't have a chance to receive salvation.
Why would you bring a child into the world knowing he/she may become a criminal, end up in prison for life, or the gas chamber?
If you were drowning, you would gladly accept a rope or lifesaver. However, if you didn't think you were drowning, you wouldn't take it. If a drug addict understands his situation, he'll seek help. If he doesn't think he needs help, he won't accept it.
If you don't think you need salvation, then why worry? It's the people who realize they need it, that accept it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Why did you ignore my question?What difference does it make? Every human is without excuse. No? You just said so yourself. How is sending either to hell for not accepting Jesus, knowing that god had foreknowledge of this person being born in a Muslim country to muslim parents and would never accept Jesus as a result of these circumstances, how does sending that muslim to Christian hell somehow qualify as perfect justice? If that's not what happens, to EITHER Muslim, please show me in the bible where it says regardless of faith or conviction, you can go to Christian heaven no matter what. I guess unless you're an atheist.Who preached the Gospel message of Jesus Christ to Abraham?Does the Muslim go the Christian heaven or not?
If a Muslim believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, he will go to (the Christian) heaven.
Aren't you claiming that the Bible claims no one can receive knowledge of the Gospel unless they hear it from a human?Or read it, I suppose, what other way is there?
I'm quite certain I've given you this link. Probably more than once. I'll bet you didn't even look.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you referring to a Muslim who's heard the Gospel message? Or a Muslim that never heard the Gospel?What difference does it make? Every human is without excuse. No? You just said so yourself. How is sending either to hell for not accepting Jesus, knowing that god had foreknowledge of this person being born in a Muslim country to muslim parents and would never accept Jesus as a result of these circumstances, how does sending that muslim to Christian hell somehow qualify as perfect justice? If that's not what happens, to EITHER Muslim, please show me in the bible where it says regardless of faith or conviction, you can go to Christian heaven no matter what. I guess unless you're an atheist.Where does the muslim go?
Muslims receive Christ just like everyone else. Living in Egypt doesn't keep anyone from hearing the Gospel. A Muslim is not going to reject Jesus any differently than the many Americans that reject Jesus.
The same thing you're saying about Muslim countries is probably what was said about nations like China and Korea. These nations may become more Christian than the west the way things are looking. Who's to say this won't happen in the Muslim nations?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Any group in the bible judged by any group of Christians to be deserving of rebuke. For example, me! As an avowed blasphemer, unrepentant in my ways and telling others to turn away from god, the bible surely has passages about how I should be ignored or cast out or stoned or any number of tortures visited upon me. Or on people who aren't CHristians. I don't think it's likely in America, but I don't support anything that can be used to grant holy sanction to base discrimination.
And you don't think the literature produced by atheist activist groups can cause discrimination?
The internet is revealing that a new generation of anti-religious nut-cases are being born.
That's basically the story. I stopped believing at 12, tried to keep believing, then couldn't make myself believe somethign that has no evidence and makes no sense. You can believe it or not, I don't care, it makes no difference to me. You're going to say I wasn't doing it sincerely or properly anyway, and I'm just going to say "according to you."Did you ignore this? BEcause no answer.
No. I'm going to say, as I have already a number of times, if you think God is evil, then it would kind of stand for reason that you would't experience
God the way you claim you sought for.
When did you come to the conclusion that the Biblical God is evil? (Supports genocide, slavery, infanticide, a misogynyst, etc.)
Created: