Originally posted by sonhouseWe have Christianity to thank for the way our attitides have changed. Otherwise, either you would have slaves or else you might be a slave and
Ah, so that makes it ok? It sounds to me like you are jealous you don't have a slave or two yourself.
I don't mean just to your job. HalleluYah !!!
Originally posted by whodeyThis line of thought is running parallel to the 'evangelical christians thread'. Two questions for you:
So in Exodus 21:2-6, we see that on the 7th year a slave will go free and if that slave has a wife and children, he is free to leave but will also leave them behind, unless he wishes to stay, in which case he can if he loves them.
Exodus 7-11 says that if a man sell then sells the daughter to be a maidservant and she does not please her master, then he wil ...[text shortened]... thing is though that there were originally no penalties for transgressing these commandments.
What do you make of Jesus' endorsement of the entire written law in Matt 5:17-20?
Christ taught us that the spirit of the law superceded the letter of the law.
What do you make of Jesus striking down certain parts of the written law, as in Matt 5:38-39?
Originally posted by SwissGambitI think the person at the following website is a much better scholar on this
This line of thought is running parallel to the 'evangelical christians thread'. Two questions for you:
What do you make of Jesus' endorsement of the entire written law in Matt 5:17-20?
[b]Christ taught us that the spirit of the law superceded the letter of the law.
What do you make of Jesus striking down certain parts of the written law, as in Matt 5:38-39?[/b]
subject than any of us. So maybe this will answer your questions.
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/jesus_fulfilled_the_moral_law.html
Originally posted by RJHindsThe author basically denied that Jesus was striking down ANY of the OT law. This is clearly false. He took 'eye for an eye' and turned it into 'do not resist an evil person'. He went through the law with his red pen, crossing out parts he didn't like, substituting his own wording, or changing the entire meaning of the laws.
I think the person at the following website is a much better scholar on this
subject than any of us. So maybe this will answer your questions.
http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/jesus_fulfilled_the_moral_law.html
You can't say that the entirety of the law, including every single written character, will not pass away, and then grab your red pen and obliterate a bunch of the written characters! It's a blatant self-contradiction. Evidently, I'm going to have to pound this point into people's skulls with a sledge hammer since most Christians do not seem to grasp it.
Originally posted by SwissGambitaha, but the christians have the blue pen of "fulfillment" which apparently means that all the laws that were changed were actually fulfilled somehow and everything is hunky-dory.
The author basically denied that Jesus was striking down ANY of the OT law. This is clearly false. He took 'eye for an eye' and turned it into 'do not resist an evil person'. He went through the law with his red pen, crossing out parts he didn't like, substituting his own wording, or changing the entire meaning of the laws.
You can't say that the enti ...[text shortened]... nto people's skulls with a sledge hammer since most Christians do not seem to grasp it.
Originally posted by whodeyYou just cant seem to make up your mind. Either slavery is wrong or it isn't. You seem to want to portray it as OK in the Bible, but at the same time claim that your religion is combating it. I am attacking both you and your religion - precisely because you refuse to combat slavery - because apparently, your God condoned it in the OT.
So go ahead and continue to attack the religion that dares to combat all forms of slavery.
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt is pretty black and white to me. The spirit of the law is what counts, and the spirit is one of love. For example, adultry is a sin. Nothing can or will change that because it is destructive and breaks the law of love. However, how one deals with that sin is not so black and white. During OT times people became slaves to sin because it entrapped them and were often stoned to death so as not to spead their sin. Conversely, Christ came to break the power of sin in our lives, hence the mercy shown the woman caught in adultry and subsequent "castihg out" of demons, so to speak. Both methods target the sin with the notion that sin is destructive and will harm society. However, Christ's method spares the sinner as well as the sin and is obviously superior.
This line of thought is running parallel to the 'evangelical christians thread'. Two questions for you:
What do you make of Jesus' endorsement of the entire written law in Matt 5:17-20?
[b]Christ taught us that the spirit of the law superceded the letter of the law.
What do you make of Jesus striking down certain parts of the written law, as in Matt 5:38-39?[/b]
So Christ became the fulfillment of the law of love, not the one who broke all the rules. The Sabbath is another prime example. Jesus healed on the Sabbath, a clear act of love. God also forbade men to do any works on the Sabbath out of love for mankind in the OT so that he could have a day of rest. Jesus was then accused of breaking the law because he healed on the Sabbath when mankind was forbidden to do any works even though it was done in a spirit of love just like the same spirit of love that the Sabbath was given to man. So considering these things, the two actions are not contradictory whatsoever even though Christ was accused of breaking the letter of the law he was consistant with the spirit of the law.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSin = slavery, hence, slavery is bad.
You just cant seem to make up your mind. Either slavery is wrong or it isn't. You seem to want to portray it as OK in the Bible, but at the same time claim that your religion is combating it. I am attacking both you and your religion - precisely because you refuse to combat slavery - because apparently, your God condoned it in the OT.
Does that help?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAccording to the Bible nothing is wrong with slavery.
You just cant seem to make up your mind. Either slavery is wrong or it isn't. You seem to want to portray it as OK in the Bible, but at the same time claim that your religion is combating it. I am attacking both you and your religion - precisely because you refuse to combat slavery - because apparently, your God condoned it in the OT.
Something is wrong with treating people unfairly or badly.
Its possible to own slaves and treat them well.
Originally posted by RJHindsWe have Christianity (AKA Paulism) to thank? It was christians who used biblical verses to justify slavery up to the 19th century and even now there are millions enslaved and in supposedly christian countries, sex slaves and physical work slaves. Christianity tried its best to keep slavery going for thousands of years and it was advances in society that stopped slavery in the US not you christians. And there is still slavery, sexual slavery going on right now right here and all over the world. Christianity hasn't stopped ANY of that. Just like the catholic priests abusing children, then the diocese hiding it, the same thing goes on right under your noses.
We have Christianity to thank for the way our attitides have changed. Otherwise, either you would have slaves or else you might be a slave and
I don't mean just to your job. HalleluYah !!!
Originally posted by sonhouseActually it was Christians you might want to research the abolition movement
We have Christianity (AKA Paulism) to thank? It was christians who used biblical verses to justify slavery up to the 19th century and even now there are millions enslaved and in supposedly christian countries, sex slaves and physical work slaves. Christianity tried its best to keep slavery going for thousands of years and it was advances in society that sto ...[text shortened]... ts abusing children, then the diocese hiding it, the same thing goes on right under your noses.
Originally posted by googlefudgeDoesn't matter whether he existed or not.
You are assuming that JC existed at all and that any of the words alleged to have been
uttered by him ever actually were.
I see no basis for assuming that.
As you say all the evidence points to the bible being written by men and not a deity in which
case it is more than possible that the central character was invented and never really existed ...[text shortened]... ter (actually Potter probably has more) it seems presumptuous to assume that he existed.
He had a following, thats all that was needed. Whether they follow some one real or not is beside the point.
Originally posted by whodeyPlease specifically address Matt 5:38-39.
It is pretty black and white to me. The spirit of the law is what counts, and the spirit is one of love. For example, adultry is a sin. Nothing can or will change that because it is destructive and breaks the law of love. However, how one deals with that sin is not so black and white. During OT times people became slaves to sin because it entrapped them ...[text shortened]... t was accused of breaking the letter of the law he was consistant with the spirit of the law.
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.Are not both the letter and spirit broken completely here?
Originally posted by SwissGambitOnce again, after Christ entered the world there was a new hope for delivering people from sin. With this new hope mercy and grace were born into a very dark world. What better way for people to take pause when they treat you wickedly than to offer the other cheek? This is a form of evangelism. In the end, if they continue they will get their eye for an eye. You just pray they don't have to pay the price is all.
Please specifically address Matt 5:38-39.38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’[f] 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.Are not both the letter and spirit broken completely here?