Christians cant eat lobster, wear polyester, wear gold, eat rabbit, have tattoos, get divrced, have

reply to post by spacemanjupiter

You are mixing up the terms Christian and church. They are not synonymous.

reply to post by SubAce

It seems more to me like the "cognitive dissonance" comes from your group.

Apples to oranges. The non-religious are near infinite in their diversity as they don't base it all on one source i.e someone holding one book as absolute authority.

I am speaking about Biblical morality being in conflict with their practiced morality. If you want to call out an atheist who claims to be a zen buddhist but whos actions are in obvious conflict then by all means call them out on their 'cognitive dissonance".

This was not the oppressive kind of slavery that has been common in many lands through the ages.

Before I respond to your post and those other passages I would appreciate a fair response to the one I referenced.

You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Permanent slavery. Treated as lesser humans.

Please first explain how that is not in conflict with your position that 1. It's not slavery as we view it today 2. How that is fair treatment.

Do that and I will respond the bulk of your post.

And the Bible shows that God will deliver us from all forms of slavery in due time. Then, all mankind will enjoy true freedom.—Isaiah 65:21, 22.

That doesn't negate my point at all. It merely alludes the physical world (seperation from God) is not true freedom. That doesn't at all suggest The Bible's 'version' of slavery is different than the modern understaning of it.

reply to post by b14warrior


So in order to reply to something YOU said I first have to go back and read every other forum post on this site that you've ever made? Maybe you've got that kind of time on your hands but I certainly do not. I was merely responding to the comment that YOU made on THIS topic.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Permanent slavery. Treated as lesser humans.

Please first explain how that is not in conflict with your position that 1. It's not slavery as we view it today 2. How that is fair treatment.

It would seem that this statement is disingenuous. We have already seen that the Israelites were regulated as to how they were to treat their slaves. It was nothing like modern-day slaves were/are treated. Like you said "apples to oranges," there is no comparison what-so-ever.

Slaves under the Law Covenant, Hebrew or not, were entitled to rights and were to be treated with dignity, respect, kindness, as humans. In my previous post many scriptures were quoted to point this out. I think what you want to know, is why is their a difference in the way they treated Hebrew and non-Hebrew slaves. This is due to the fact that the Law Covenant was for the Hebrews, and with the main purpose of protecting them in order for their lineage to be protected until the coming of the promised seed of Genesis 3:15.

Life with the Israelites was no doubt much better, even as a slave, than it was probably in most of the world at the time.

Today many people have jobs. They have bills to pay and debts owed. They actually are in the same condition, in slavery to those whom they owe money. They go to work, they have to do what they are told or are fired. If they are fired they no longer can afford to pay their debts. The ones owed the debt than can move to take legal action to get their money back. In the case of banks, they may take the house away that has money owed on it, or anything else of material value for that matter. In fact people are even sent to jail because of not paying debts.

The debts some people owed the Isrealites was their very lives. For example Jehovah said he was going to give the land of Canaan to the Israelites. The people living in the land were disgusting in their filth, practicing child sacrifice, canabalism, brutal savagery of unimaginable proportions. God simply used the Isarlites as his sword to remove this wicked people. When there were people among them, such as the Gibeionites who put their trust in Jehovah he lovingly spared them and made them become servants to the Israelites. But slaves in Israel were no like slaves as you imagine them. They had rights and protections. In fact they were treated so well, many times even those Hebrews who could go free at the specified time choose to stay with their masters because they came to love them.

You may complain about how God allowed things but you are not looking at all of the good he created by his perfect laws. And you cannot see the difference to what even so-called "free societies" today are. People thinking they are free but enslaved to banks, and slaves to their jobs. This you may consider freedom, but it is not. Very few people have every really been free.

When the new world comes, everyone will be set free, until then we are all under bondage somehow. The bondage that God approves of is much lighter a load than the cruel and oppressive one that Satan has designed and instigated over mankind, that to sin and death. And only God can free you from it. And he has done so freely is you are willing to exercise faith in the ransom sacrifice he paid for our sins. - John 3:16.

reply to post by U4ea82


I was not suggesting you check all my posts all the threads, just this one.

reply to post by b14warrior


Oh. Well, I apologize then. I misunderstood.

reply to post by SubAce


Are you actually defending slavery? How do you know the people back then followed any of the religious doctrine told to them? From history - right. History has shown us that if we have regulations, we will treat our fellow human beings with love and compassion. Right. Ridiculous isn't? You're basically saying that slavery back then was better because it was more like being an indentured servant, regulated and such. Right, because history has shown us that indentured servants had it way better. Because if it's written down how to regulate cruelty, all is right in the world? Slavery was condoned by Christians for most of its history including not so long ago. I'm sorry but no amount of saying that it was better back then makes it right or okay or makes me think, Oh see Christian ignorance isn't so bad (not all Christians are like this). Why defend that? There is no defending slavery! Ever! If you can't own up to how wrong it was, please don't try to defend it. You don't have to change your faith but please don't try to convince anyone that back then slavery wasn't so bad. Unless you were there and lived it, you don't know jack. Slavery and indentured servitude is an appalling injustice to basic human rights at any time in our human history no matter who it was imposed by. For goodness sake, it was written down how to regulate human slavery! Disgusting proof of how very stupid people were back then. Any way you spin it -- slavery is a horrific crime against humanity.

reply to post by kisharninmah


No I am no defending modern-day slavery. I was explaining the difference between the slavery allowed by Jehovah God in the Law Covenant and that of modern-day slavery. You need to read a few posts back in order to understand the difference, it is there so I won't repeat it. I realize that this thread is really long so you may have missed it.

There is a huge difference between what people consider slavery and what Jehovah allowed in Israel.

Originally posted by SubAce
reply to post by kisharninmah

 

No I am no defending modern-day slavery. I was explaining the difference between the slavery allowed by Jehovah God in the Law Covenant and that of modern-day slavery. You need to read a few posts back in order to understand the difference, it is there so I won't repeat it. I realize that this thread is really long so you may have missed it.

There is a huge difference between what people consider slavery and what Jehovah allowed in Israel.

You shouldn't defend slavery at all. Early American slave holders were Christians too. Let's look at historical documents and see how good they were treated. I'm horrified that anyone would defend slavery at any point human history.

Originally posted by kisharninmah

Originally posted by SubAce
reply to post by kisharninmah

 

No I am no defending modern-day slavery. I was explaining the difference between the slavery allowed by Jehovah God in the Law Covenant and that of modern-day slavery. You need to read a few posts back in order to understand the difference, it is there so I won't repeat it. I realize that this thread is really long so you may have missed it.

There is a huge difference between what people consider slavery and what Jehovah allowed in Israel.

You shouldn't defend slavery at all. Early American slave holders were Christians too. Let's look at historical documents and see how good they were treated. I'm horrified that anyone would defend slavery at any point human history.

How can you derail the post I made only a little bit ago? It is really silly how no one can post anything and have an intellictual discussion without the post being derailed by trolls within a minutes.

No they were NOT Christians. Christians do not get involved with politics, they do not go to war, they are not divided against themselves. They do not believe in Hellfire dogma, do not believe in a Trinity, do not believe in an immortal soul.

There are so many people on earth that claim to be Christian that are not. But to say that they called themselves Christians makes them is about as much sense as saying a cat must be a dog because it said it was. Thus we must judge all dogs based on what cats do because they say they are dogs.

If you want to know what a Christian is you need to read the Bible and see if that group of people is living their lives in accord with its words. If they are NOT, then they are not Christians even if they claim they are.

Originally posted by SubAce

Originally posted by kisharninmah

Originally posted by SubAce
reply to post by kisharninmah

 

No I am no defending modern-day slavery. I was explaining the difference between the slavery allowed by Jehovah God in the Law Covenant and that of modern-day slavery. You need to read a few posts back in order to understand the difference, it is there so I won't repeat it. I realize that this thread is really long so you may have missed it.

There is a huge difference between what people consider slavery and what Jehovah allowed in Israel.

You shouldn't defend slavery at all. Early American slave holders were Christians too. Let's look at historical documents and see how good they were treated. I'm horrified that anyone would defend slavery at any point human history.

How can you derail the post I made only a little bit ago? It is really silly how no one can post anything and have an intellictual discussion without the post being derailed by trolls within a minutes.

No they were NOT Christians. Christians do not get involved with politics, they do not go to war, they are not divided against themselves. They do not believe in Hellfire dogma, do not believe in a Trinity, do not believe in an immortal soul.

There are so many people on earth that claim to be Christian that are not. But to say that they called themselves Christians makes them is about as much sense as saying a cat must be a dog because it said it was. Thus we must judge all dogs based on what cats do because they say they are dogs.

If you want to know what a Christian is you need to read the Bible and see if that group of people is living their lives in accord with its words. If they are NOT, then they are not Christians even if they claim they are.

I did read your post about defending ancient slavery approved by God. Christians not involved in politics and war? Uh - the crusades, the Salem witch trials, gay marriage...Hellfire, trinity - ALL CHRISTIAN. Hell fire is a pentecostal belief, trinity a catholic. Different sects same rhetoric. The very definition of Christian is one who believes Jesus Christ is the son of God. I have studied Christianity: Jehovah witness, Mormon, catholic, pentecostal, protestant. It's the JW that don't believe in hell. But neither do Jewish people. It is a Christian myth. I'm not trying to derail you're post. I'm wholly disgusted by it. Again, religion or not ALL SLAVERY AT ANY TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY IS BEYOND CRUEL. Regulating cruelty does not make it better! Intellectual, wow...lmao...wow. Troll? Very Christian of you. But then again, slavery as described by Jehovah is okay in your book.

reply to post by murphy22

there is really no point in "debating" further.

I support that freedom. I won't even view it as sin.

The bible is not a book you can take pieces here and there out of and mold to your own beliefs.

Precisely my point. Which is effectually what Christians do when they in one breath use OT as a basis for an argument and then in another breath cry New Covenant.

I infact am not taking pieces out but incorporating the whole of the Bible in my argument since it's apparent Christians still do.

As you and others implied some Christians do. In this case they are as ignorant as you are regarding the bible.

Again something Christians seem to not accept..

We do not have the belief in the Bible you do, therefore we do not believe any particular Christian has the correct interpretation of the Bible.

We view someone as a Christian if they say they are Christians and if they preach from the Christian Bible. If you have issue with this then your issue is not with us. Take issue with the fact there are thousands upon thousands of different denominations (belief frameworks) and preach not to us non-believers but to the believers you believe to have false belief.

There are many sins in the book, homosexual acts being only one of them.

You already said that and I already agreed.

They are all wrong. You can not pick and choose what laws or sins you will not commit. A Christian must do his best to obey them all.

Well I don't have the belief that the Creator God influenced the words of the Bible.

As for Christians belief in what the Bible says.... I can argue they are wrongly interpreting it on the basis of mistranslation. I can argue Christians still use the OT where they apparently are no longer supposed to. That's not cherry picking.

Christians are commanded to not judge. I know you gag on that because you have a very liberal view of what judging is.

If by a "very liberal view" you mean I use the English definition then sure I have a very liberal view. I also apparently have a very liberal view of the word 'slavery' as I view purchasing a human for work and treating them as a lesser human is slavery.

I don't care what dictionary you got it from, but that is not judging.

It is according to the dictionary. Yes I know you don't care, doesn't change that it qualifies as judgment.

Judging usually comes with a penalty for the judged.

Why do I get the impression you are trying to argue the English definitions? I posted it...not much wiggle room to argue. Unless you redefine it with the Bible of course.

Anyways. Christian judging does come with penalty. And no I'm not referring to God's judgment. If a Christian holds the view that a homosexual is sinning simply be being homosexual then the penalty is obviously that the Christian will look down on that persons very nature and all sorts of psychological ramifications will ensue. If the belief that homosexuality is a sin serves as a catalyst for why said Christian votes against gay marriage then the penalty of that judgment is the gay person isn't allowed to marry their lover.

You just can't win this without changing the definition of judgment using a Biblical interpretation.

Christians do not fork out punishment.

Obviously not true. Some do. I wonder if I gave examples of violent acts as a direct result of biblical belief if you would argue I had the wrong understanding of 'punishment'.

Christians are not here to condemn but to carry on where Jesus left off

I believe Jesus would advocate gay rights

There are very simple things that you do not understand about Christian beliefs to argue deeper would be futile.

Arguing deeper is the only way I could come to understand. Not that you're obligated

I know you probably say, you "don't believe in him," or maybe just my view of him.

I do not believe the Bible to be a direct result of communion with God. However I am not an atheist. I have the metaphysical belief that all of reality is a part of something eternal and intelligent and because of the implications that would have I have no issue calling that God and I often do.

But from a believer it is the best wish I could hope for anyone. Maybe someday we could do coffee together, even if we still disagree.

That's a very kind suggestion. I also understand that many Christians are actually preaching from a position of benevolence when they condemn sinful acts as they believe they are concerned about the welfare of that persons soul. So I get that. I just don't believe all these sins are really sins.

Romans 5:21a
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law

havent met a single person yet that follwed half of their own religions rules, muslims, jews, christians, buddhist

THEY ALL KILL

reply to post by borntowatch


The topic of the OP isn't about the proper understanding of the Bible but what today's Christians actually practice. There are a LOT of different Christian organizations and many of them actively teach and encourage what some Christians consider null as a result of the New Covenant. To non-believers they are still Christians (even if you personally don't believe they qualify for the title). With that in mind, what are your thoughts?

reply to post by ~widowmaker~


I starred your post because I am more or less in agreement and feel that's a strong point.

However I think the Jainists (pretty sure it's them) go so far as to wear cheesecloth (or equiv) over their mouths so they don't accidentally ingest insects. Obviously science shows they still kill what seems to be invisible. Still, you have to appreciate their dedication to being non-violent.

reply to post by b14warrior


In reference to you presenting that the dietary laws in the Old Testament are silly. The dietary guidelines presented in the Bible and also mentioned in the book of Daniel has been recognized by the some comprehensive dietary study ever conducted, The China Study, finished in 2005 showing it links perfectly with what the latest science recommends as the healthiest diet in existence.

A lot of Adventists follow those dietary guidelines and they are the longest living pan-global 'culture' in existence. Looks like science is only now just catching up with God's Words written thousands of years before hand

If you are going to start questioning the Bible then you better make sure that where you disagree that your alternative is actually healthier, better, leads to more lasting happiness ect than what God says...better luck next time

reply to post by b14warrior


What is wrong with you that you can't let someone disagree with your beliefs?

Everyone has their beliefs, not all will agree with yours and because they don't agree that's not an excuse to harass them.

Live and let live, eh?
Or
To each their own, eh?

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
There's also the part where they say that if you break God's law by working on the Sabbath the punishment is death...DEATH!

So, don't mow your lawn on Sunday and don't have a bar-b-que because cooking is work, too. Otherwise you might be smited.

edit on 8/5/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)

If you are going to start judging others on what they do and what is lawful then at least get the time of the Sabbath right (Friday sun-down to Saturday sundown) and understand the intent of the Sabbath command instead of deciding for yourself what you think is lawful and what isn't.

Names for Saturday in Many Languages

Arabic: Sabet
Armenian: Shabat
Bosnian: Subota
Bulgarian: Sabota
Corsican: Sàbatu
Croatian: Subota
Czech: Sobota
Georgian: Sabati
Greek: Savvato
Indonesian: Sabtu
Italian: Sabato
Latin: Sabbatum
Maltese: is-Sibt
Polish: Sobota
Portuguese: S ábado
Romanian: Sambata
Russian: Subbota
Serbian: Subota
Slovak: Sobota
Slovene: Sobota
Somali: Sabti
Spanish: Sabado
Sudanese: Saptu
Ukranian: Subota
source

The True Meaning of Sabbath

"The Sabbath was hallowed at the creation. As ordained for man, it had its origin when "the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy." Job 38:7. Peace brooded over the world; for earth was in harmony with heaven. "God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good;" and He rested in the joy of His completed work. Gen. 1:31.

Because He had rested upon the Sabbath, "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it,"--set it apart to a holy use. He gave it to Adam as a day of rest. It was a memorial of the work of creation, and thus a sign of God's power and His love. The Scripture says, "He hath made His wonderful works to be remembered." "The things that are made," declare "the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world," "even His everlasting power and divinity." Gen. 2:3; Ps. 111:4; Rom. 1:20

The Sabbath calls our thoughts to nature, and brings us into communion with the Creator. In the song of the bird, the sighing of the trees, and the music of the sea, we still may hear His voice who talked with Adam in Eden in the cool of the day. And as we behold His power in nature we find comfort, for the word that created all things is that which speaks life to the soul. He "who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. 4:6."
Desire of Ages, Chp 29 p.281, p. 282

The perversion of the Sabbath Commandment and if it is lawful for meal preparation at that time

As the Jews departed from God, and failed to make the righteousness of Christ their own by faith, the Sabbath lost its significance to them. Satan was seeking to exalt himself and to draw men away from Christ, and he worked to pervert the Sabbath, because it is a sign of the power of Christ. The Jewish leaders accomplished the will of Satan by surrounding God's rest day with burdensome requirements. In the days of Christ the Sabbath had become so perverted that its observance reflected the character of selfish and arbitrary men rather than the character of the loving heavenly Father. The rabbis virtually represented God as giving laws which it was impossible for men to obey. They led the people to look upon God as a tyrant, and to think that the observance of the Sabbath, as He required it, made men hard hearted and cruel. It was the work of Christ to clear away these misconceptions. Although the rabbis followed Him with merciless hostility, He did not even appear to conform to their requirements, but went straight forward, keeping the Sabbath according to the law of God.

When accused of Sabbathbreaking at Bethesda, Jesus defended Himself by affirming His Sonship to God, and declaring that He worked in harmony with the Father. Now that the disciples are attacked, He cites His accusers to examples from the Old Testament, acts performed on the Sabbath by those who were in the service of God.
The Jewish teachers prided themselves on their knowledge of the Scriptures, and in the Saviour's answer there was an implied rebuke for their ignorance of the Sacred Writings. "Have ye not read so much as this," He said, "what David did, when himself was an hungered, and they which were with him; how he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, . . . which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?" "And He said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." "Have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple." "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Luke 6:3, 4; Mark 2:27, 28; Matt. 12:5, 6.

If it was right for David to satisfy his hunger by eating of the bread that had been set apart to a holy use, then it was right for the disciples to supply their need by plucking the grain upon the sacred hours of the Sabbath. Again, the priests in the temple performed greater labor on the Sabbath than upon other days. The same labor in secular business would be sinful; but the work of the priests was in the service of God. They were performing those rites that pointed to the redeeming power of Christ, and their labor was in harmony with the object of the Sabbath. But now Christ Himself had come. The disciples, in doing the work of Christ, were engaged in God's service, and that which was necessary for the accomplishment of this work it was right to do on the Sabbath day.

Christ would teach His disciples and His enemies that the service of God is first of all. The object of God's work in this world is the redemption of man; therefore that which is necessary to be done on the Sabbath in the accomplishment of this work is in accord with the Sabbath law. Jesus then crowned His argument by declaring Himself the "Lord of the Sabbath,"--One above all question and above all law. This infinite Judge acquits the disciples of blame, appealing to the very statutes they are accused of violating.

Jesus did not let the matter pass with administering a rebuke to His enemies. He declared that in their blindness they had mistaken the object of the Sabbath. He said, "If ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless." Matt. 12:7. Their many heartless rites could not supply the lack of that truthful integrity and tender love which will ever characterize the true worshiper of God.

Again Christ reiterated the truth that the sacrifices were in themselves of no value. They were a means, and not an end. Their object was to direct men to the Saviour, and thus to bring them into harmony with God. It is the service of love that God values. When this is lacking, the mere round of ceremony is an offense to Him. So with the Sabbath. It was designed to bring men into communion with God; but when the mind was absorbed with wearisome rites, the object of the Sabbath was thwarted. Its mere outward observance was a mockery.
Desire of Ages, Chp 29 p. 283, 284, 285, 286

Best learn to know what you are actually talking about before designating your opinion as authoritative on what God says

There are those who say they are Christian, and then there are those who are Christian. Those who are dont need to tell others because you can tell by how they live their lives and by their actions.

Sadly there are more of the first group then there are of the second. Most politicians fit in the first category lol.