Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bergbryce
climber
East Bay, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2014 - 09:55pm PT
|
This thread is great!!
It got me looking up whack ass bible passages and I found this gem....
And a young man followed him, with nothing but a linen cloth about his body. And they seized him, but he left the linen cloth and ran away naked.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 01:38am PT
|
Uhh, wher did i fail?
The questions concerned Exodus and Leviticus.
I guess you weren't following the dialectic you were engaged in.
Norton said that Jesus and the Father approved of slavery and quoted a couple of verses.
You responded that those verses were written 1500 years before Christ, with the obvious implication being that we can today just ignore that old, Hebrew junk as irrelevant, because God was trying to bring a backward people up out of the slime; 1500 years later we would see God's actual perspective on the matter... through Christ (and presumably the apostles).
I mean, your response is totally incoherent AS a "response" if you weren't trying to make something like the point that God's perspective on slavery wasn't revealed to the backwards Hebrews because He had bigger fish to fry with them. So, presumably after more than 1500 years of being God's people, by the time of Christ, God would be able to set things straight.
But you "fail" because nothing like that argument will fly.
NOWHERE in the Bible does God (via any form of revelation) indicate that slavery was, is, or ever will be wrong. And the Jews kept slaves throughout the time of Christ and beyond. And Paul did NOT use his classic opportunity to set the matter straight; instead he SUPPORTED the institution of slavery, even among Christians.
Paul knew that a man must submit to his government. And if a man was a slave, he was to be a good slave. No matter what your job is, you are to do it to the best of your ability to honor your Father in heaven.
Actually, Paul knew NO such thing! Paul repeatedly defied "his government" regarding moral and religious matters, and was ultimately beheaded for his ongoing and stubborn defiance. Paul was a tough cookie and would certainly have set Christians straight on the subject if he had the slightest inclination to do so! He was fully prepared to defy the counsel of Jerusalem regarding circumcision. Nothing about slavery???
And do you REALLY have the temerity to try to float this line? "No matter what your job is, you are to do it to the best of your ability...."
REALLY??? Being a slave is a "job" on your model of reality?
The case YOU need to make is that slavery IS wrong, but that this was a sort of "social reform" that God hasn't been concerned about in this fallen social order. God apparently ALWAYS has bigger fish to fry than to address slavery, although He addresses plenty of other minutia, such as a woman being unclean during her period.
So that's a VERY hard row to hoe! And you find NO support for a case against slavery in the Bible itself. Thus, your attempt at a "response" to Norton was tortured and convoluted on multiple levels.
So, again I say: Fail. And on multiple levels.
And you jumped in on the subject of abortion. So again I ask you to reveal to us from the Bible how you know abortion is wrong and that God condemns it.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 11:46am PT
|
Thanks for your response MB1.
I mean, your response is totally incoherent AS a "response" if you weren't trying to make something like the point that God's perspective on slavery wasn't revealed to the backwards Hebrews because He had bigger fish to fry with them. So, presumably after more than 1500 years of being God's people, by the time of Christ, God would be able to set things straight.
Nowhere did i say that the bible didn't oblige slavery. But it was an invent of man. And what i believe a part of Gods plan. Through out history men have "owned" other mens bodys and have dictated what they shall do with them, sometimes against their own will. If need be bodily punishment was used to persuade. That is man owning another man slavery. Today we aren't so Neanderthal as that, but we still have forms of slavery. To our government, our bosses etc, But more importantly to our own minds. Can we agree that the old testament is known today as "The Law"? It contains the 10 commandments and many other Laws inwhich the minds and bodys of ancient peoples were to adhere to. Do you believe that the OT was "a shadow of things to come" as Joshua put it? It was written for a time until the law was to be fulfilled. So what cast that shadow? It is the Messiah and the New Testament. Jesus said that The Law only leads to death. He laid down the new Law of "Love thy brother as thyself" The Law is forever inscribed in our conscious, but its the Heart that should dictate our actions. If your mule fell into a ditch on Sunday, would you not work to pull her out?
Actually, Paul knew NO such thing! Paul repeatedly defied "his government" regarding moral and religious matters,
Romans 13, Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgement on themselves.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but of evil. do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
Paul
Paul did rebel against authorities over religious freedoms, and he taught that as well. But he taught to be good citizens.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 11:50am PT
|
Isn't Christianity just a form of spiritual slavery? wait...let me rephrase.
Christianity is Spiritual Slavery.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 12:07pm PT
|
^^^ Yea, but it's more like how we are a slave to eating.
The more you praise, the fuller you get!!!!
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 12:14pm PT
|
no the more you eat, the Fatter you get.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 03:52pm PT
|
But he taught to be good citizens.
The problem you have with this fence-sitting view of yours regarding government is that you are unable to offer a principled distinction between slavery being "wrong" (despite its being legal and supported by God, His people, and the apostles) and abortion being "wrong" (despite its being legal and nowhere mentioned nor condemned in the Bible).
The religious right has been riding a number of hobby horses, anti-abortion being just one of them. The problem is that they can't sustain their position either Biblically nor philosophically. Thus, they appear clueless, arbitrary, and intellectually vapid or even vacuous.
With abortion being legal in this country, and given your arguments, shouldn't the religious right just calm down and "be good citizens" on this subject? On what basis should the religious right legislate instead of contenting themselves to educate?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 05:40pm PT
|
And that is relevant to this discussion... how, go-B?
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 05:53pm PT
|
Clearly we're just not dealing with the snappiest biners on the rack here.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 06:17pm PT
|
But it makes me wonder, since you say we are on the opposite side of the spectrum
Do you support the Right Wing Political agenda?
Would you vote for someone like Romney or McCain instead of a Democratic Candidate?
How about Rand Paul?
I don't remember saying that we are on opposite sides of the spectrum. I believe that I've said that you argue from the left but that I'm not on the "right/left" spectrum at all.
I'm a philosophical libertarian, which does not even map neatly onto political libertarianism. So, no, I am not a fan of the right wing agenda or of the Rebumblecons at all.
That said, I usually find myself in a very tough spot on election day, as there are no electable candidates that represent my perspective. Romney and McCain both have severe problems. So does Obama and Hillary. Rand Paul is no chip off of his daddy's block; he is a pretty straightforward Rebumblecon.
Ron Paul was closest to my perspectives of any recent candidate, but he was not electable.
As just one example of how neither party serves the deepest interests of Americans....
9/11 -- Bush USES this as a pretext to initiate imperial presidency like no president before him. In the interests of "security," we get such double-speak as the "Patriot Act" and a mandate to the NSA to do "whatever it takes" to "keep us safe."
Obama is elected on a platform of "change" and "transparency," and we have gotten neither. Virtually every promise to undo Bush's legacy of double-speak (including what we now know included the most sweeping invasions of American privacy ever) have gone unfulfilled. And you can't blame the Rebumblecons for that, as for the first couple of years, the Demoncrats owned Washington.
Americans care FAR more for "security" and "comfort" than for freedom and individual rights. Individual responsibility is right out the window. And accountability among politicians of any party is non-existent.
Every man, woman, and child in this country is over $100,000 in debt (and climbing), and that is real debt. We've crossed a line such that we can't print our way out of this one. And the dollar is on the brink of losing its status as the world's reserve currency.
Fiscal responsibility is non-existent in both parties. Even Rand Paul's "conservative" budget is a farce.
So, I don't know if we're on "opposite sides," but I'm confident from past discussions with you that we don't see eye-to-eye.
It's ironic that I, a Christian, find myself on the "same side" as you regarding the right-wing-religious efforts to "legislate morality." But, again, very few Christians are on "my side," as I cannot align with their senseless dogmatism, social gospel, and "relevancy efforts" that amount to nothing more than being really loud and rude about making this nation moral.
Sarah Palin? THIS is the best the right can come up with??? Don't get me started!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 07:30pm PT
|
Yeah, that's about right. lol
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 09:23pm PT
|
this is what happens when you graduate from a christian collage!
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2014 - 09:24pm PT
|
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 09:08pm PT
|
MB queeried,
The problem you have with this fence-sitting view of yours regarding government is that you are unable to offer a principled distinction between slavery being "wrong" (despite its being legal and supported by God, His people, and the apostles) and abortion being "wrong" (despite its being legal and nowhere mentioned nor condemned in the Bible).
i sometimes forget everyone hasn't read all my thousand's of posts.
i don't think i'm a fencesitter. i hate slavery from a humanity stance. i think it's wrong in every aspect! i was merely commiting towards 7pools assumtion. Havn't you heard me toughting the Christians for starting the end of slavery in this country?
And i think abortion is wrong from a personal view point, but i wouldn't vote to make it illeagal while living in this country.
But i don't think saying these types of acts are "supported by God"is the correct phrase. i think acts like slavery and abortion are shoved in His face by man. Then He puts it back in our face to watch how we react.
My view on government is much like urs and DrF's.
|
|
ms55401
Trad climber
minneapolis, mn
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 09:23pm PT
|
first and only post on this stupid-as-fukk thread
just wanted to see what the deal was, to see if it was anything other than a colossal waste of time
Confirmed. Adios, retards
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 09:45pm PT
|
HaHa HaHa!^^^^ NO, it was God.
the post was by the Devil...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2014 - 11:13pm PT
|
And i think abortion is wrong from a personal view point, but i wouldn't vote to make it illeagal while living in this country.
Great! Then you are no religious-right-wing zealot... at least on that topic.
But i don't think saying these types of acts are "supported by God"is the correct phrase. i think acts like slavery and abortion are shoved in His face by man. Then He puts it back in our face to watch how we react.
That doesn't work.
1) God has no need to "watch how we react." Instead, on the Biblical model, WE need to see God's perspective of morality.
2) Per (1) just above, the Bible is purported to provide the foundational moral principles, and God frequently clarifies the implications of important ones to be sure we don't misunderstand.
3) Per (2) just above, somehow God finds moral-minutia like female periods being "unclean," circumcision "counting" and then no longer "counting," the eating of strangled meats being bad, oh so bad, and a host of other nit-picky details critical that we understand in great detail; as apparently we just won't GET those implications of morality.
But somehow, in light of the foregoing points, He has no space, time, energy, or revelation to expend on clarifying things like how wrong slavery is or the moral status of the fetus?
Given the Biblical notion that God is the supreme moral authority, His utter lack of condemnation of slavery, and His issuance of many laws and rules regarding HOW to carry forward the institution, it strikes me as a distinction without a difference to claim that He does not support the institution of slavery when He has been AT LEAST complicit in its institution for many thousands of years!
My view on government is much like urs and DrF's.
I'm really unclear how that could be accurate, because, as was stated in a small sidebar discussion between me and Dr. F, our views on government are very little alike. So, there's no way that you share "our" view, because there is no "our" view on government.
I have no idea yet what your view actually is, but you sure seem to have been arguing pretty anti-abortion on a "Christian nation (not)" thread.
We'll be forgiven for not clearly seeing that all this argumentation of yours really isn't even suggesting that the government have anything to do with making it illegal.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 05:44am PT
|
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. (we are to remember, honor, and give thanks to Him!)
Actually, go-B, it's pretty ironic that you would be quoting this commandment. Do you keep Saturday (the whole day) holy, or Sunday (some "part" of the day)?
There's a LOT more to the fourth commandment than your trite "we are to remember, honor, and give thanks to Him!"
The commandment is very, very specific; the change from Saturday to Sunday observance was a late-second-century invention that was quickly adopted by the budding Catholic church.
So, what day is it that you keep holy (the whole day)?
... just pointing out a pretty significant inconsistency among those Christians that get all in a froth about the other commandments, enjoining them on the whole nation, but utterly fail in this one. LOL
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 08:43am PT
|
...Jesus was the fulfillment of the Old Testament, He was the one true sacrifice given by God for the sins of the world! The Sabbath was changed to Sunday to honor Christ's resurrection day!
Typical fluff and nonsense response. The history of the change is well-documented, and the arguments you cite emerged in the sixth and eighth centuries, well after the change was made.
Interesting how only the fourth commandment supposedly got changed by Christ, while all the others were left alone.
I don't want to side-track this whole thread onto this topic, because it would be a huge debate. But you don't know your history, and the Scriptures you cite do not mean what you take them to mean. I'll leave it at this and simply note that even on something as "clear" as one of the COMMANDMENTS, Christendom can't be consistent.
And we're supposed to look to Christendom to tell us as a NATION about "moral" legislation based upon Christendom's interpretation of morality???
Sorry, but no-can-do! This is why our founders instituted a clear, bright line between church and state, and it is why (as a Christian) I will vigorously decry Christians attempting to legislate a heavily-interpreted, inconsistent, Bible-based "morality."
|
|
go-B
climber
Cling to what is good!
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 09:11am PT
|
Dr. F. is right about becoming an atheist, if we are not saved by the reconciliation offered to us by Christ's atonement on the cross!
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!