 |
|
|
|
|
April 21st, 2014
11:00 AM ET
What Hollywood gets wrong about heavenOpinion by Drew Dyck, special to CNN (CNN) - The 4-year-old boy sees angels floating toward him. They start out as stars, then slowly become more visible, wings flapping behind orbs of white light. As they approach, they sing a melodious song. The boy cocks his head, squints into the sky, and makes a strange request. “Can you sing ‘We Will Rock You’?” The angels giggle. So do people in the theater. The scene is from “Heaven is for Real,” the latest in a string of religious movies soaring at the box office. Based on the best-selling book of the same name, the film tells the real-life story of Colton Burpo, a 4-year-old boy who awakens from surgery with eye-popping tales of the great beyond. The film took in an estimated $21.5 million in opening on Easter weekend. Even Colton’s religious parents (his dad, Todd, is a pastor) struggle to accept the celestial encounters their son describes: seeing Jesus and his rainbow-colored horse, meeting his sister who died in utero, and talking to his deceased great-grandfather, “Pop,” who, Colton exclaims, has “huge wings.” The book and film are part of a larger trend. Depictions of journeys to heaven have never been more numerous or more popular. There’s “90 Minutes in Heaven,” “To Heaven and Back,” “Proof of Heaven,” and “The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven,” just to name a few. Does God have a prayer in Hollywood? So what should we make of such accounts? And what does their popularity say about us? Some may be surprised that the Bible contains not one story of a person going to heaven and coming back. In fact Jesus’ own words seem to preclude the possibility: “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man” (John 3:13). Scripture does contain several visions of heaven or encounters with celestial beings, but they’re a far cry from the feel-good fare of the to-heaven-and-back genre. In Scripture, when mortals catch a premature glimpse of God’s glory, they react in remarkably similar ways. They tremble. They cower. They go mute. The ones who can manage speech express despair (or “woe” to use the King James English) and become convinced they are about to die. Fainters abound. Take the prophet Daniel, for instance. He could stare down lions, but when the heavens opened before him, he swooned. Ezekiel, too, was overwhelmed by his vision of God. After witnessing Yahweh’s throne chariot fly into the air with the sound of a jet engine, he fell face-first to the ground. Perhaps the most harrowing vision belongs to Isaiah. He sees the Almighty “high and exalted,” surrounded by angels who use their wings to shield their faces and feet from the glory of God. Faced with this awesome spectacle, Isaiah loses it. “Woe to me!” he cries, “I am ruined!” (Isaiah 6:5) New Testament figures fare no better. John’s famous revelations of heaven left him lying on the ground “as though dead” (Revelation 1:17). The disciples dropped when they saw Jesus transfigured. Even the intrepid Saul marching to Damascus collapsed before the open heavens - and walked away blind. How different from our popular depictions. And it isn’t just “Heaven is for Real.” In most movies angels are warm, approachable - teddy bears with wings. God is Morgan Freeman or some other avuncular presence. Scripture, however, knows nothing of such portrayals. Heavenly encounters are terrifying, leaving even the most stout and spiritual vibrating with fear - or lying facedown, unconscious. Yes, the Bible teaches that heaven is a place of ultimate comfort, with “no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Revelation 21:4). But it is also a place where the reality of God’s unbridled majesty reigns supreme - and that’s scary. Did a 4-year-old boy from Nebraska really visit heaven? I don’t know. My hunch is that the popularity of such stories tells us more about our view of God than the place in which he dwells. Ultimately I believe we flock to gauzy, feel-good depictions of heaven and tiptoe around the biblical passages mentioned above because we’ve lost sight of God’s holiness. I fear we’ve sentimentalized heaven and by extension its primary occupant. I worry the modern understanding of God owes more to Colton Burpo than the prophet Isaiah. And I think this one-sided portrayal diminishes our experience of God. We can’t truly appreciate God’s grace until we glimpse his greatness. We won’t be lifted by his love until we’re humbled by his holiness. The affection of a cosmic buddy is one thing. But the love of the Lord of heaven and earth, the one who Isaiah says “dwells in unapproachable light,” means something else entirely. Of course it means nothing if you think it’s all hokum. If for you the material reality is all the reality there is, any talk of God is white noise. But if you’re like me, and you think heaven is for real, well, it makes all the difference in the world. Drew Dyck is managing editor of Leadership Journal and author of “Yawning at Tigers: You Can’t Tame God, So Stop Trying.” The views expressed in this column belong to Dyck.
Next entry »Pope stirs Communion debate with call to woman
« Previous entryStop dressing so tacky for church
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Honestly Christians, don't you feel at all embarrassed that your whole belief system is so obviously flawed on so many levels? How can the bible be the word of your god when it is so obviously flawed historically, scientifically and logically? And if you do accept that there are parts of the bible that are shown to be irreparably flawed historically, scientifically and logically, how can you believe any one part of it over another part of it?
Denial is one thing. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force. But don't you even question this belief system that seems unable to stand up to even the slightest scrutiny?
Just curious, what is one "flaw" you are most confident in as flawed?
That is a great but tough question, to pick one out of so many.
My choice: Slavery should not be condoned by a loving and moral God.
Who is my Master? It is God so that would make me a slave to God. In that context and form of expression yes God condones slavery. But, let us choose words that we can agree on. I cannot understand existence without God because the plan and purpose of creation as I understand it is to unite my soul (essence, awareness, being) with eternal perfect love. In that context if you have ever been in love you would at moments be a willing "slave" and gladly do anything the object of your love needs. You would give up your life, work your fingers to bone etc. You also know your "master" loves you and is willing to die for you and even created an entire existence just so you could experience wonders to great for words.
That is the relationship we were designed for.
"In that context and form of expression"
Nice dodge.
Your bible also accepts slavery in other contexts as well.
Like poeple owning other people. That is the problem.
Mankind has never done life God's way as man always goes his own direction. That direction included an economic form of labor necessary for the survival of larger family units. That form required all sorts of division of labor. God never condones negative, hurtful, harmful relationships yet that is the lot of mankind because of what we are outside of the presence of God.
Certainly there are verses related to civil and tort penalties for harming slaves, buying slaves etc. because the Bible presents mankind as it is not as God would have it.
fred,
Lets not engage in word games, the bible clearly defined slavery as one man owning other human(s) as personal property. I am confident that is a flaw (more than a flaw, it is reprehensible).
Jesus paid the ransom for our soul so we are in certain respects his property. However, it is all context as Jesus does not own us because we give ourselves to Christ because of all that He has done to bring us into life eternal in Christ.
More stupid word play and twisted context.
The bible allows men to sell their daughters to other people.
The bible allows you to buy poeple from surrounding communities.
It is okay to beat your slaves to death – as long as they suffer for a few days before they die.
fred,
You missed my point. If there were a God, I'd have no problem with it owning his creation.
I have a problem with a God condoning one human owning other humans. Reprehensible.
bostontola
Try not to get hung up on the master/slave relationship we have witnessed which is wrong and remember God set the captives free in the major story of the exodus and set all free from the bondage of sin through Christ. The theme of the Bible is setting us free from the darkness than binds mankind. Beginning in Genesis we see God created light to separate us from the darkness.
Alias
" The bible allows men to sell their daughters to other people."
=>Obama has not stopped one act of Female genital mutilation. Can you say Obama allows FGM ?
"The bible allows you to buy poeple from surrounding communities."
=>The Bible records the event and law as it was for a particular tribe in 1440 BC. Do the laws of a small tribe in Africa allow you cut female genitals, does that condone the act for you or anyone that you can think of?
" It is okay to beat your slaves to death – as long as they suffer for a few days before they die."
=>You know that is a lie, you know is not ok. Even if you did such a thing 3,000 years ago God would hold you accountable for harm brought to another even if Moses says it is ok. Why? because anyone who loves God knows better. If you do not know better then it depends on your capacity to understand right from wrong. You are only held accountable for what you were given by God.
fred,
You asked a question, what is a flaw in the bible. The bible condoning the practice of one human owning others is a major flaw. You are ok with humans owning humans. Your religious belief is strong enough for you to rationalize that. You are indeed a good Christian.
bostontola
"The bible condoning the practice of one human owning others is a major flaw."
=>You are creating the flaw where there is none. That is like saying a barter system is major flaw compared to using currency as a medium of economic exchange. Then some time later to say using coin is a major flaw rather that a debit card or electronic transfer. Using migrant farm workers at wages far in excess of their normal rate of pay in their own country is a major flaw labor practices. Working your entire life like a slave to pay your taxes while just getting enough to eat and living pay check to paycheck so your master can own a villa.
A description of economic life is not a major flaw it is an accounting.
=>In anticipation of the next question "you may buy slaves from the nations around you". This is the same economy as our current migrant farm worker situation as you may buy slaves from Mexico . Or in the case of electronics you may by products made with slave labor in Vietnam. The bondage remains the bare necessities of life we just don't like the word slave because of politics.
BelieverFred.
You are equating slavery with different monetary systems, low paid immigrant workers and cheap over seas labor? As described in the bible slavery is the ownership of another human being who is willed to your heirs when you die. Slavery is selective breeding and selling off children like puppies. Treatment of slaves per the bible includes the right to beat them to death. The bible also endorses se.xual slavery which is the most abhorrent thing one human being can do to another. And you say "let's not make an issue where there is none?" In another post you said "let's not get hung up on the master/slave relationship". Which is fine if your the master. It would tickle me to see you with a chain around your neck, watching your wife sold into the "servitude " of another man, while your children were sold off elsewhere. I would like to see you have to "service" your master who likes men each morning. And then acknowledge that scripture says you are always to eagerly serve your master as a good christian slave. I think you are a self righteous **** and if there really was a hell you deserve the hottest corner.
A loving and moral God accepted that sinful men had slaves. But that same God also told the owners to love and treat their slaves as brothers.
StevePage,
God told slave holders how badly they could BEAT their slaves without punishment.
Please read a Bible.
Observer – I must disagree. Exodus 21:20:21 explicitly says if a master beats a slave and he dies immediately he is to be punished. But if the slave hangs onto life for a day or two before dying the master is not punished. But looking at the big picture are you accepting that the bible condones slavery? Because we are just debating the details here.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
jbhollen
" You are equating slavery with different monetary systems, low paid immigrant workers and cheap over seas labor?"
=>I was attempting to contrast economic realities thousands of years ago to the present. It is more than economic oppression and it entails our attitude towards those who are treated worse than slaves. I am not addressing what was the African Slave Trade in the U.S.(that was more like the barbaric nations that surrounded the chosen ones in Exodus). The reality was that Gods people were to be separate from other nations. In the time of Exodus to be a slave of a Hebrew was like winning the lottery for the impoverished class in these barbaric nations.
"Treatment of slaves per the bible includes the right to beat them to death."
=>tell me where that is not treated as murder and subject to death for the abuser. God never gave such a green light and ANYONE who would murder another or oppress another will suffer consequence. This has not changed to this day.
"The bible also endorses se.xual slavery which is the most abhorrent thing one human being can do to another."
=>That is contrary to God on many fronts and always has been. Where do you find this?
"It would tickle me to see you with a chain around your neck, watching your wife sold into the "servitude " of another man, while your children were sold off elsewhere. I would like to see you have to "service" your master who likes men each morning."
=>That did not take long for your soul to reveal the real reason you reject God.
"And then acknowledge that scripture says you are always to eagerly serve your master as a good christian slave"
=>attitude is everything. I am sorry you were oppressed and have not found a way to free yourself. A slave to Christ is about as free as one could ever find themselves. Certainly the slave word is thousands of years out of touch but the attitude of a servants heart is always refreshing for all concerned.
I'm having trouble posting.
Testing 1,2,3.
believerfred –
=> You were attempting to contrast economic realities....with slavery. Equating economic oppression...with slavery. You somehow rationalize setting aside the enslavement of Africans as not germane to the discussion. Finally you equate being the slave of a Hebrew as winning the lottery? I cannot get my head around how a person can be so morally bankrupt to make these comments. We are talking about the loss of ones self. And not just yourself, but your children as well. Subject to lawful se.xual abuse, beatings and death (addressed below). At least I give you credit for accepting (partially) this horror as part of your holy text. But to be honest you make me uneasy. If you can accept this travesty as god’s righteous word, what else are you capable of rationalizing?
=> Scripture supports the beating and murder of Slaves...(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property".
So the punch line is that if a slave dies at the time of a beating her owner is punished. If the slave clings to life for a day before dying then the master is blameless.
=> Scripture supports se.xual slavery...(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
=> "It would tickle me to see you with a chain around your neck..." putting this biblically I was invoking the essence of Exodus 21:24 "eye for an Eye..."
I intentionally meant to be graphic when I wrote this and it was inappropriate. I apologize. I was and still am in a state of unbelief that you can accept slavery, as condoned by the bible, in any context, as acceptable per your god. My intent was to try and make you see this horror from a slave’s perspective and not as a bystander blithely saying it is all good.
=> In closing you comment that being a slave to Christ makes you free. What I find fascinating is that you are a slave to a person who cannot be perceived in any factual way, who if he ever lived, has been dead for 2000 years. Your chains are self imposed and imaginary, and your countless rules to live by are extracted from a collection of myths thousands of years old that include slavery and many other detestable acts. To me that is not freedom. It’s self abuse.
jbhollen
If you are replying to my post keep in mind it contains nasty words if you cut and paste my words like attitude. Because there is a tit that pokes the bad word robot.
jbhollen
"you equate being the slave of a Hebrew as winning the lottery? I cannot get my head around how a person can be so morally bankrupt to make these comments"
=>If you and your family were stranded on a desert without hope, water and food then someone puts you on their camel taking you out of that desert you just hit the lottery. The bad news is your still in the desert but now have shelter in a rock ridge. You have hope because you may just adopt the desert peoples God and find the oasis they celebrate. When you die as we all will then God reveals the perfect kingdom where every tear is wiped away and that desert no longer exists. Some say it will be as if it never existed to begin with.
Now you are not being honest. You can't use a "dying in the desert" analogy as it is not applicable. Leviticus 25:44 starts with "However, you may purchase male or female slaves...", Exodus 21:2 starts with If you buy a Hebrew slave..." and most disturbingly Exodus 21:7 starts with "When a man sells his daughter as a slave...". People are buying and selling slaves and selling daughters into slavery, they are not finding them dying in the desert and doing them a favor by enslaving them.
And we are talking about slavery. Let's not go down the path that the evil act of making someone a slave is somehow countered by converting them to your belief system.
jbhollen
"if a slave dies at the time of a beating her owner is punished. If the slave clings to life for a day before dying then the master is blameless."
=>no that is not what those verses say. You are correct in that if the slave dies then the owner is guilty of murder. If the slave lives the master is NOT blameless and the verse does not say that in anyway. This is a lie.
In both cases the master is subject to consequence of God because the Hebrew was specifically forbidden from oppressing any person whatsoever or wronging that person. In the day of Exodus the verse says he will not be punished (killed for taking a human life) if he lives because he is his property. No good person would destroy of damage their own and if you have beaten your slave you have damaged your property, reduced its productivity and destroyed relationship with the person and God. God never says there is not an accounting for how you treat others and actually says the reverse in that this master will be held accountable.
VERY well put beieverfred! these people don't use their critical thinking skills when reading the bible..and they don't use the context either as well....good job
I think you are wrong. First, Exodus 21:20 says nothing of the master ever being guilty of murder. It says "He shall be punished". For all I know he is fined a chicken or a goat for killing his slave. But that is slightly off topic. Regarding the verse below it says "If, however, the slave survives for a day or two...". If the slave "survives for a day" then he is dead thereafter. If the slave "survives for two days", he is dead thereafter. For your interpretation to hold water it would have to simply say "if the slave survives...,"
The second half of your post is not germane. It does not mean anything if the master is right or wrong with his his deity. We are talking about the beating and murder of slaves.
First, Exodus 21:20 says nothing of the master ever being guilty of murder. It says “He shall be punished”.-> SERSIOUSLY???????IF he wasn't guilty why punish them??????? Maybe you need to rethink that response again
believerfred,
Yep, God will take care of all punishments. Obviously, there was NO REASON AT ALL for him to give a LONG LIST of reasons to kill people as he commanded.
You don't think things through at all.
jbhollen
The bible does not support sex slavery in Exodus 21:7-11. Again, these verses are intended to limit or restrict action not promote it. When we set a speed limit on the road today it is not to promote speed but to restrain harmful behavior.
We assume some ugly uncivilized behavior was commonplace and that is never right and never condoned yet alone supported by the Bible. Even the Hebrew who were to be holy because their God was holy fell into the ways of the world around them. To the extend they did as the world around them these instructions then were to limit and protect the women not expose and promote ungodly behavior.
God deals with people where they are in life not where they could ideally be if they were not human.
Believer fred –
One more follow-up on this post. You said,
"We assume some ugly uncivilized behavior was commonplace and that is never right and never condoned yet alone supported by the Bible."
Are you now saying that the bible does not condone slavery? I need to go back through our posts, but I thought that ship already sailed.
believerfred,
Go read a Bible and then come back and tell us ONE TIME where God said it was WRONG to OWN another person.
BOy you are pretty dense observer..address this issue right now..IF I am to love others..will I want to enslave them..yes or no?
"VERY well put beieverfred! "
Said one delusional man to the other.
observer
"Yep, God will take care of all punishments."
=>remember we are talking about the Bible. The bible warns us about the wrath of God and you and I both know the ugly hurtful things people have done and will do. Yes God is just and justified in all that God undertakes simply by the nature of God. You know the way of the cross and suffering, mocking, humiliation Jesus endured. This is a clear picture of what sin does to a holy God, feels like to a holy God and is endured for our salvation by a holy God.
You can accept what God has done for all of us or reject God but we cannot change the plan of creation.
"Obviously, there was NO REASON AT ALL for him to give a LONG LIST of reasons to kill people as he commanded."
=>correct, God does not owe us an explanation even if we could understand it.
=>
fred, If your god is hard to understand, how are you so sure that what you say it wants is really what it wants?
If you mean by the Bible..God is not that hard to understand in his communication to us...it is only hard when people forget to use context, when people like AMericans forget the Bible was written by mostly Jews in a different country and culture and time. (and language)
observer
"19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body."
=>God has purchased me with a price. God is never contradictory. No one not even Satan can put my soul into any form of bondage. Why? I have been redeemed I am Gods property if you want to use out of date terminology from the days of uncivilized slavery.
=>there is your verse God says you cannot put believerfred into slavery, you cannot buy because I belong to God. I am a servant of God.
=>If you want to be free simply become a servant for eternity.
believerfred –
Are you saying the slavery verses that we have been discussing are not true because they "use out of date terminology from the days of uncivilized slavery"?
use the CONTEXT man..it said VERY plainly..if a man owed a debt..he would SELL himself as a slave to pay off the debt......its ALL in the context......
kermit4jc
"IF I am to love others..will I want to enslave them..yes or no?"
No for us, but God NEVER told his people that was wrong. Instead, he gave them rules for when they SOLD their young daughters to strangers for their use.
Speaking of dense, please tell us ONE TIME where God said it was WRONG to OWN another person.
WHHAAAAA????? I think you need to reread my posts..and yours.....NOT for us? come on...Jesus SAID in the BIble..to LOVE others! so I think you agree then..(if im not mistaken by your last response-if I am mistaken correct me) that when we love someone we will not want to enslave them....
BY THE way..I DID tell you...Jesus said to LOVE one another...that right there pretty much tells me that owning someone is wrong......apparently yo umay not think much of love then.....
In Santa We Trust
God is not hard to understand and is very clear about the purpose and plan for my life. Attempting to unwind a translated version of Hebrew from 1440 BC about civil and tort law concerning what is meant by property does not need to be as clear since I would never abuse another or even comprehend what it means to look at another human as anything other than a beautiful creation made by God.
Cop out. The verses are crystal clear and concise in their content. Are you now falling back on "translation error"? It's funny, I am either arguing with believers who insist that scripture is the word of god and has not changed for thousands of years, or believers who hide behind "who knows what was originally said" as the scripture was translated 1440 BC.
Follow-on question. If all the verses that clearly support slavery in today's bible are untrue because they were scrambled over time, then how can you put stock in anything else said in the bible? You can't have it both ways.
believerfred
"The bible allows you to buy poeple from surrounding communities."
"The Bible records the event and law as it was for a particular tribe in 1440 BC. "
lol. The Bible tells you WHERE you can buy YOUR slaves to OWN. READ one.
Again observer..these are people who owed money and needed to pay off debts
kermit4jc,
lol. So this is just a matter of love? Pitiful attempt to change the subject. FAILED completely.
Name ONE TIME that God said OWNING a person was WRONG.
Name ONE TIME that God said OWNING a person was an ABOMINATION.
Name ONE TIME that God said OWNING a person was a SIN.
I'll wait.
it is nOT changing the subject....seems to me you have no idea of what love is and what it does to people......so sad for you...seeyou want shallow stuff...you don't seem to appear to connect dots very well......you need things spelled out to you apparenty
kermit4jc
"these are people who owed money and needed to pay off debts"
So God's MORALS said it was fine then to sell your 7-year-old daughter to a complete stranger for his use, right?
Your same "owed money and needed to pay off debts" logic supports nearly all prosti-tution. So God supports that too, right?
for his use.......again to WORK..to PAY off debts owed....you wanna rip that out of context too? again as I said...at THAT time (even today) children helped to do the family work.....when people sold themselves to others, they did it to WORK and those who took them on had them to do WORK..and who says it was a complete stranger? .
kermit4jc,
The TOPIC is SLAVERY. God never mentioned love in connection with selling your daughter or buying slaves. Bad effort. FAILURE.
Name ONE TIME that God said OWNING a person was WRONG.
Name ONE TIME that God said OWNING a person was an ABOMINATION.
Name ONE TIME that God said OWNING a person was a SIN.
Still waiting. Please try hard to stay on the topic and answer the request.
I am so doniewith you oni this..yes I KNOW it was about slavery..but once again yo prove you are incapable of connecting the dots.....I made it perfectly clear..you are totally unwilling to follow or such..youre very dishonest person a LOVING person would NOT want to enslave another...thus telling others to love IS telling them to not own slaves....lets see if you can connect THOSE dots..if not..there is no hope for you in communication skills or even to know at love is.....
"these are people who owed money and needed to pay off debts"
That is not a valid reason for enslaving a person. How pathetically immoral of you kermi!! So when a patients parent can't afford to pay you, are you going to enslave them? After all you support slavery! NEVER has there been justification for owning slaves and your god condoned it, making your god an immoral ass.
kermit4jc,
Get serious. Someone sells their daughter to a foreigner and you really think they will be watching out for their kid when they go off with strangers? You can PRETEND that a 7-year-old girl will work hard for a stranger and NEVER be a subject of assault by them if you want. I prefer the real world. In those times, the girls were 4 or 5 years from marrying age so there's no chance the owner would think of them s3xually, right? lol.
observer
"The Bible tells you WHERE you can buy YOUR slaves to OWN"
=>No, it accounts for a few words of a local civil law at a point in time to a particular people. It does not tell "you" or anyone alive today where or what to do with slaves purchased from the nations around you.
=>As kermit4jc said let us start with what is straight forward and clear. Love your neighbor as your self, feed the hungry, cloth those without, visit those in hospitals and prisons, have compassion and pray for your enemy.
believerfred,
Once AGAIN you seem completely CLUELESS what the Bible says.
(Lev. 25:44-46) “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."
Please read a Bible SOMETIME.
TruthPrevails1
"owning slaves and your god condoned it, making your god an immoral ass"
=>seriously, you cannot jump from an account of two line local tradition or law to the generalization that my God an immoral ass. This statement speaks volumes of the condition of your soul. Should I extrapolate it to a generalization of who you are as a person?
Believerfred-
Looking for responses from previous posts.
observer
You always stop short of the complete truth and telling a partial truth is simply a lie. Go few more verses and note: "the Israelites belong to me as servants. They are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt. I am the Lord your God."
Now, get the picture? We are all to be servants, we belong to God. You reject God and you reject the things of God. You prefer to choose the bondage of godlessness rather than the freedom of eternal life.
Stop using your twisted godlessness in an attempt to make a way of life in the desert thousands of years ago fit into the civilized world of today
Believerfred-
Asking again. Do you now say that the many verses we have been discussing do not condone and instruct in human slavery?
Believerfred – Your comment on the Israelites being the servants of God is a generalism applied to an entire people. In addition god said they were his servants which is not the same as his slaves. The scriptures we have been discussing today were written instructions and rules that very specifically instructed individuals on the proper methods of slavery. Not exactly sure what gyration you were trying to make, but the Israelites being servants of god in no way takes away from the fact that in Exodus, Leviticus and other books the bible condones and instructs on slavery in very specific and exacting terms. You and I had a discussion going and you have gone completely silent, not responding to my last 4 or 5 posts to you. Should I just assume you have no cogent response to any of the straight forward questions I have posed?
believerfred,
Don't be DIMWITTED enough to call me a liar when I am quoting EXACTLY what the Bible says.
If all Jews are slaves to God, there is NO REASON to BUY or SELL them and NO REASON to BUY or SELL aliens.
Your PITIFUL attempts to PRETEND the Bible doesn't say what it DOES SAY makes you look totally ridiculous. WAKE UP!
READ a Bible so you will finally have a CLUE what it says.
believerfred is telling truth..opbsever..yuogive only HALFt truths and rip things out of context and make the BIble say what you want it to say..I see you didn't even address the issue of reading further in the passage that he suggested...showing me that you know you are being dishonest
Believerfred said,
“I cannot understand existence without God because the plan and purpose of creation as I understand it is to unite my soul (essence, awareness, being) with eternal perfect love. In that context if you have ever been in love you would at moments be a willing "slave" and gladly do anything the object of your love needs. “
kermit4jc said,
“...LOVING person would NOT want to enslave another...thus telling others to love IS telling them to not own slaves….”
I am confused about the Christian view here, is slavery a sign of love or is love the thing that prevents slavery?
MidwestKen –
I thought I had a conversation going with believerfred who was staying on topic more or less, but when it got close to actually drawing some conclusions he spun out and went all existential on me. Won't even answer direct posts now.
The bottom line is that the verses we have been discussing condone and instruct regarding slavery. There is no way to rationalize around it. So one of two things has to be true. Ether the bible and by extension god condones slavery or the verses are completely scrambled through translation and transcription over time such that their message is substantially changed from the original intent, in which case nothing in the bible can be considered a reliable record of the original. In other words, it is just so much scrap paper.
Every once in a while I find someone on this blog to have an honest discussion with but when we start closing in on actually drawing a conclusion on something, they run liked scared rabbits.
jbhollen
"I think you are wrong. First, Exodus 21:20 says nothing of the master ever being guilty of murder. It says "He shall be punished". For all I know he is fined a chicken or a goat for killing his slave."
=>Genesis 9:6 Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in …
Numbers 35:30-33 Whoever kills any person, the murderer shall be put to death. Tell me what is unclear about the word ANY?
"If the slave "survives for two days", he is dead thereafter. "
=>not in the bible and you take this whole thing out of context. It is a few lines of a personal liability law:
…"19if he (any person) gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed. 20"If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21"If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…"
Read it together. The guilty will pay for loss of time and take care of the injured party. A slave is the guilty parties' property. Should the guilty party reimburse himself when his slave cannot work ? nonsense. It is a clarification of personal liability because the slave is yours of course you will take care of him until completely healed or you just caused yourself further damage not to mention accountability to God for failure to treat others right.
Do you think it makes sense for atheists to split a paragraph apart so it no longer has context? The argument over the right or wrong of a human being property is a separate issue.
believerfred. I will answer your post with a couple so they don't get ridiculously long. In your first point regarding killing you ask if your Numbers quote is clear. Yes it is. So are the 5 verses below calling for the killing of family members and babies and even animals. If we are going to get into a quoting contest on killing I am going to win. There are a lot more calls to kill in the bible then there are to not.
=>Exodus 32:27
Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side ... and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.
=>Numbers 15:35
And the Lord said unto Moses, The man [who was found picking up sticks on the sabbath] shall be surely put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones.
=>1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the Lord of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare him not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
=>Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
=>Deuteronomy 13:6-10 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
Regarding the verse on beating a slave. As I went to look at the context of the verse I stumbled upon three more lethal verses. Exodous 21:15 if you hit your mother or father you die. 21:16 If you steal, you die, 21:17 if you curse your parents you die. Anyway back on topic. The context you site (if one man injures another he must pay reparations) adds nothing to and takes nothing away from 21:20-21. Those two verses are still crystal clear and specific in their meaning. You interpretation would require the verse to say "if the slave survives". The way that it is written is "If, however, the slave survives for a day or two..." meaning that if the slave survives for a day (or two) and then dies on day three the master is blameless. If your take is correct what do the words regarding surviving for a day or two add to the verse? The verse goes out of its way to be very specific and your efforts are trying to muddy it up.
AGAIN jb..there was NO FBI or CSI the man can NOT be proven to have murderous intent if the man survives for another day or so.....you are again very bad at investigating and connecting the dots
Believerfred –
I thought we had a discussion going. No reply to my last posts?
jbhollen
I would be nice to resolve one issue before moving on. You said punishment for murder could mean anything. According to the time and culture Moses recorded the verses you question I think it was clear that if you kill your slave you are sentenced to death. Do you still question that?
believerfred – we continue to disagree, but hear me out. Usually when asked to redefine something that is plainly written by looking at it in context I suspect a dodge. But keeping an open mind, I looked at Exodus 21:20-21 in the larger context of Exodus 21 in its entirety. I found that Exodus 21 consists of 36 verses that describe the punishment or repercussions for 15 different actions. Of the 15 different actions, the penalty for 7 of them is death (verses 12,14,15,16,17,23 ands 29). The death penalty is explicitly stated as follows: 12 -...shall be surely put to death, 14-...take him from mine alter, that he may die, 15-...shall be surely put to death, 16-...shall be surely put to death, 17-...shall be surely put to death, 23-...thou shalt give life for life, 29-..his owner shall also be put to death. So given this context, why would verses 20 and 21 use the word "punished" unless it was meant to describe something other than death. Again, using the surrounding context, the penalty in 20 and 21 is specifically not death but instead some undefined "punishment".
The "rod" was not an instrument of death such as a stick, rock or sword. Typically, if an Egyptian slave was chastised it was with the rod as used in a schoolmaster situation. The intent of the master most likely was not to kill the slave. It is not a clear cut case where the death penalty is automatic (as in the other death cases you cite as they were clear killings or against parents which is a different topic). The purpose of this verse to warn the Hebrew not to abuse as there is consequence for abuse or oppression. The theme in Exodus was God had freed the Hebrew from the oppression and abuse of being slaves themselves. The Hebrew were to be holy as God is holy. The master does not get away with anything as he MUST be punished is very strongly stated. I will agree with you that we really do not know 100% what punishment means yet we do know it is not 100% death as in the other cases you mentioned.
believerfred – you are pretty much stretching your logic to the breaking point. I did a quick search for biblical definitions of rod. The Hebrew word is shebet and it means rod, staff, club or sceptre. Your claim is that the rod is not an instrument of death such as a stick but the very scripture we are discussing disagrees with you. Exodus 21:20 "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished." Verse 20 says that striking a slave with a rod can kill him. It's black and white. And with all due respect you can't tell me what the masters intent was. For that matter the verse does not refer to "A" master but references "any" master who might beat his slaves. I thought that my logic and background info in my last post was definitive that the "punishment" described in verse 20 and 21 could not be death. But we are really far afield of what our original discussion was about. First question was, does the bible condone slavery? Since we are spending a lot time discussing the finer points of beating a slave, and subsequent penalties for the master, I assume that we are by that one and the answer is yes. The second point that we did not resolve was in verse 21. I still persist that it clearly states that if a master beats a slave badly and the slave does not die immediately but hangs on for a day or two before dying, the master is held blameless. It is stated clearly and I have not heard anything that would convincingly say otherwise.
jbhollen
"And with all due respect you can't tell me what the masters intent was"
=>correct and this is why the law cannot demand death to the master. Slaves were by common practice disciplined or chastised by the rod which came out of their own 430 year slavery under Egypt. It is not in the interest of the master to kill his slave, it is not in the interest of the master to go against all of Gods other constraints as to causing harm to another yet alone his own personal property (valuable asset).
=>if you want to get technical about the usage of the rod meaning something else you are being disingenuous. You insist on the specific word death yet you want another word for ROD which in reference to a slave typically denoted a long cane for chastisement of a slave in Egypt. Since you brought it up go back to 21:12 and note it says if anyone strikes a man then observe it is left open ended such that a rod , stick etc as you suggest could be used.
Believerfred – so, no the law does not demand death to the master, just "punishment" of some sort. That was the point I was trying to make. What is in the masters interest, the value of the slave as an asset or the master being sideways with his god are not germane to the discussion. If everyone acted appropriately, then there would be no reason to write down laws. They are written down because people often do not act in their own or others best interest.
Your last paragraph has me scratching my head. I did not "get technical about the usage of the Rod meaning something else". You were the one who said "The Rod was not an instrument of death" in a previous post. My response was that the rod is exactly what 21:20 said it was. Something than can be used to beat a slave to death. You said that I "insist on the specific word death"? What are you talking about? I quoted 7 other verses that were specific about death, but the point I was making was verses 20 and 21 used "punishment" so it must mean something other than death. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding 21:12.
I was trying to close on two questions on my last post that you did not respond to. First, does the bible condone slavery? Given that we have spent a lot of time in discussion around the technicalities of beating slaves, I have to assume the answer is yes. Secondly, I persist that 21:21 clearly states that if a master beats his slave and he survives for a day or two and then dies, the master is held blameless. I have heard no convincing argument otherwise.
You seemed to have kind of lost-it on this last post which is not like you. Are you OK?
jbhollen
"the slave does not die immediately but hangs on for a day or two before dying, the master is held blameless"
=>nowhere does it say or imply "blameless", the verse is continuation of the thought concerning compensation for loss when someone is injured by your actions. The slave was injured and compensation would be the monetary loss of time due to injury. As I mentioned in prior post the slave is the masters property so the master would be compensating himself for the loss of time and functionality due to the injury caused. This is why the verse says "he is not to be punished (monetary compensation) since the slave is his property.
believerfred – I used the word blameless which is absolutely implied in the verse. The actual verse (21) says "he is not to be punished" which means the same thing. You could not be more off-base by saying that 20 and 21 concerns "compensation for injury". That is clearly not the case.
Exodus 21:20 – When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. (To paraphrase, if you kill your own slave you will be punished in some unspecified way.)
Exodus 21:21 – If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (To paraphrase, after beating the slave if he survives for one or two days then the master is not punished.)
Your contention that this has to do with compensation for injury is not supported. There is nothing in either verse that provides anything to anybody due to injury. Verse 18 and 19 are completely separate and have to do with one man injuring another with "a stone or fist". It has nothing to do with a master beating his slave. That is a new topic that starts with verse 20. So "continuation" from previous verses does not apply.
jbhollen
"I used the word blameless which is absolutely implied"
=>blameless is not implied, the master is not blameless and is never blameless for cruel oppressive treatment of another. The main thread in the Bible beginning with Cain and Abel is not harming others. This was not a new idea from Jesus as care and compassion began with Gods creation of man in the first place. These masters were not to treat their slaves as they were treated in Egypt or treat them like the other nations treated their slaves. The Hebrew were a Chosen People, a holy people before God. Even if Moses never recorded this verse any master who abused any other would suffer consequence. Suddenly you wish to imply something contrary to the general threat of Exodus and contrary to the will of God known very well to all these people.
A slave was a very valuable asset to a master who could afford to buy and train a slave. These were treated often as members of the family. You first have made some assumption the slave was just beaten without cause. That is not the case as slaves were beaten when they committed a crime not just by the whim of a decent master. I mention it was common to chastise not ever just to be mean. Now, if that slave is harmed the master has lost a valuable asset or lost a degree of functionality from that asset. There is no vengeance taken because the master suffered the loss. When you read the verse in context you see if the injured was not his property then the master would need to care for the injured. Well the master is already taking care of the injured because the slave is his property. It is what you normally do with your property, Sorry if the words from thousands of years ago don't ring the same today.
Believerfred –
This discussion is around Exodus 21:20-21 and was taken in context of Exodus 21 as a whole. Verse 21 says if the master beats his slave but the slave survives for a day or two then the "master is not to be punished". Exodus 21 is a list of laws. You or anyone else can blame the master for his actions, but in the eyes of the law he is blameless. You describe the slave being valuable, being loved as a member of the family, never being willfully harmed, etc. Although I would like to see your reference in scripture to back this up, it really doesn't matter. The discussion is about what the law says. We all agree today that our children are to be loved and cherished, they are our most valuable asset and if they were seriously injured that it would be a financial hardship. But there are still laws on the books today that say we are not allowed to kill, abuse or cause injury to our children. Having such laws does not mean we are all child abusers. It means as a society we will hold accountable those who are. The fact that there is a law in Exodus prohibiting the beating of slaves to death is not an indictment of the Hebrew people as murders of slaves. It is a law that prohibits deviant behavior. You also make some comments about the beating and harming of slaves. To be clear, the law does not prohibit the beating and harming of slaves. A master can do this at will within the law. Exodus 21:21 actually says a master can beat a slave to death as long as she lives for a day or two after the beating.
I am trying to discuss the law of Exodus and you keep trying to slip in to a discussion of general morality. Keep in mind that for days we have been discussing the finer points of beating slaves. The “morality” ship sailed long ago.
Lastly, you suggested looking at the laws of Exodus under the wider biblical context of "care, compassion and not hurting others". You use Cain and Able as an example. I contend that a wider biblical view would be in the context of genocide, patricide, matricide, fratricide, infanticide, misogyny, raype, innce.st and a host of individual bloody acts. I contend that there are as many or more references in the bible of these sorts of acts as there are acts of "care and compassion". Even the story of Cain and Able that you call out as an example of “not hurting others” doesn’t pass this test. Cain murdered his brother Able (fratricide).
I have been trying to get you to state the obvious for the last several posts. You have never answered the original question. Given that we have been discussing biblical rules for the treatment of slaves, do you agree that the bible condones slavery in general?
Jbhollen
The Bible does not condone slavery based on a few assumptions.
However, the topic of beating slaves is much easer to resolve and I would like to know just where I am off on my opinion. You use the word "blameless"-free of guilt; not subject to blame:synonyms: innocent, guiltless, above reproach, irreproachable, unimpeachable, in the clear, exemplary, perfect, virtuous, pure, impeccable, faultless;
The master is only "blameless" if he was chastising the slave as was customary and not to cause harm but correct behavior or consequence for criminal behavior. Under that assumption the slave would not be damaged property. Now, if damaged such that there was loss of ability for work then the master is not blameless. The master would be subject to normal personal injury damages. Since the slave is the masters property the master suffers loss equal to the damage thus no vengeance will be taken out on the master. Not that there are no consequences but because the master has already borne the consequence of action that was not "blameless"
Perhaps the word property is a problem, here is the king James translation:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
"for he is his money or property was not put in this verse by accident as it has meaning. You concept of blameless would not require the qualifier of why no compensation is to rendered under personal liability laws.
believerfred – I'll make a point by point response.
=>You say "The Bible does not condone slavery based on a few assumptions." Fred, we have been discussing the laws listed in Exodus 21. You have shared several opinions on what the biblical law says regarding beating of slaves, the bibles description of the instrument of that beating (rod), the biblical law around how long a slave survives after a beating. You have offered opinions regarding slaves bound to the Hebrews under the law are valuable assets. You have said that slaves bound to Hebrews per biblical law are loved as family. You have said that slaves bound to the Hebrews per biblical law that are injured are a costly liability. With all of these discussions and opinions you shared in great detail regarding slaves bound under biblical law, how can you say that you do not admit that the bible condones slavery? We have spent days in discussion of the finer details of the treatment of slaves bound under Exodus 21:20-21. Every conversation so far has had the common foundation that the Hebrews had slaves in compliance with biblical law. You have said it a dozen times, in writing, in a round about way, so why can't you just say it concisely – the bible condones slavery. To put it a different way, if you say the bible does not condone slavery, what in the world have we been talking about for the last few days?
=> Our discussion has been very specific and contained as to what the LAW says in Exodus 21:20-21. What you feel, what you know, what makes sense for the master, what is logical HAVE NO BEARING ON THE DISCUSSION. We are discussing the letter of the LAW which is shown below. Take a minute to read it again. 20 says if the master beats his slave to death he is punished in an unspecified way. 21 says that if the slave survives for a short while the master is "not to be punished". I used the synonym of "blameless" which is accurate. Why the master beats the slave, how hard or long he beats the slave or even if the slave is severely injured HAVE NO BEARING ON THE DISCUSSION per the law. You can pile on outside blame from neighbors, family, friends or the community at large. It does not matter. If the master has not broken the law HE REMAINS BLAMELESS IN THE EYES OF THE LAW. No where in the law does it say he cannot severely injure his slave. Your comments about loss of ability to work, personal injury damages or the slave being damaged property have no bearing. The law we are discussing either punishes the master for the death of a slave or holds him blameless if the slave lives for a period of time. Nothing in-between.
Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. Exodus 21:20-2
jbhollen
The devil is in the details which is why you cannot simply truncate a verse yet alone take it out of context.
Tell me why this is included "since the slave is his own property." Given its grammatical position it clarifies how the personal liability has been satisfied.
"Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property."
is not the same as:
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished.
Again in context:
“If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fist[d] and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.
“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
=>Note when the injured survives the guilty party must pay for any loss of time but as to the slave the guilty party is not to be punished ...............SINCE the slave is their property. The master cannot pay a slave for lost work because the slave is his property.
believerfred – To start with you are absolutely right. I ignored those words as written in 21:21 not thinking them relevant. And you are right again, they are relevant. They play an important role in bringing 21:21 together. But in support of my position not yours. Here is my logic – If the master beats his own slave and the slave survives for one or two days, and then dies, the master is held blameless "because he owns the slave". The point being he did not cause property damage to anyone but himself so no foul. The phrase "since the slave is his own property" is significant because it explains why he was not punished.
The contrast would be that the master beat someone else's slave who survived for a day or two and then died. Then one would assume the master is on the hook for damaging someone else's property "since the slave was NOT his own property. This is just an extrapolation as it does not actually appear in any of the laws.
Great job Fred. I feel like I just found the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle.
You are off base when you start discussing context. You are calling out 21:18-19 which are completely separate and removed from 21:20-21. 18 and 19 describes a situation where two men get in a fight, presumably equals, and one man injures the other. The law states in 21:19 that the injured man is owed reparations. That is where the story ends. Period. Then starts 21:20 which is a completely different law involving a master beating a slave to death with a rod. This bears no resemblance to and has nothing to do with the previous law. So trying to apply the reparations paid for injury in 21:19 to the law described in 20:21 is absolutely inappropriate and false. There is no justification to assume any penalty for injury in 20:21 as it is clear a life/death law.
jbhollen
If the master did not suffer loss due to the slaves injury then the slave was never injured and you have no case
Remember this is about what the LAW says. The LAW stated in 21:20-21 makes no reference to reparations for an injured slave. It is very specific that the triggering event for any penalty is the death, not injury of the slave. That is what the LAW says.
Now in a different conversation, you can say it is self evident that if a master severely injures his own slave, and the slave can not work, the master has just penalized himself. This is simply the master reaping the benefits of his own viscousness and stupidity. This is all very logical, and in a side discussion makes perfect sense. HOWEVER IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LAW. In this situation there is no, punishment, fine or penance IMPOSED BY THE LAW for the master injuring his slave.
The case stands.
Also, by the way you ducked the question about the bible condoning slavery and my rebuttal. Can you please respond?
jbhollen
The word condone often is taken to mean approval of a wrong. The Bible does not prohibit slavery and God allowed it to begin and continue which I do not see as approval of such a wrong way of viewing others. Slavery was the way of the world and part of the sin nature of man and the world. The idea of a servant continues to this day and just as Abraham was a servant of God so too are any that believe in God at this time. We are not our own but we belong to God. In that context servants and a master / servant relationship between God and man is not only approved but required.
Fred – I base my assertion that the bible condones slavery on scripture itself.
=> "However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you." Leviticus 25:44
=> "If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years". Exodus 21:2
=> "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are". Exodus 21:7
=> "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished". Exodus 21:20
=> "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear....".Ephesians 6:5
=> "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect". 1Timothy 6:1
These verses all give permission, instruct or provide rules for participation in the slave trade and slavery. I would ask you to consider the first one. It says "However, you may purchase male or female slaves....". This verse explicitly gives permission to participate in slavery. To give permission to participate in something is to condone it. Agree?
Regarding the rest of your post I want to stay away from the word "servant" as that is not applicable to the discussion. I also want to exclude voluntary servitude or slavery to an unobservable deity. Neither of these are applicable to the "slavery verses" we have been studying. Lastly, you refer to biblical slavery in the past tense and then switch to "servant" in the present tense. Are you saying that the verses in the bible that explicitly give permission, instruct or provide rules for participation in the slave trade and slavery applied in the old world but are untrue and not applicable today?
@believerfred....keep up the good work brother...jb has me ignored so hes got to get it from somewhere...good job God Bless you
jbhollen
""However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you." Leviticus 25:44"
=>This has nothing to do with what most people consider to be the slave trade.
=> Verse 44 and 45 say you may buy them from certain nations and from local temporary residents. These are all people who volunteer and want to be indentured servants. It is more like working your whole life to payoff your debts than it is like a slave trade. You can never buy someone who does not offer himself (Exodus 21:16 16 “Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession."). If you mistreat them you will suffer loss because all they need to do is run away and they are free of their abusive master : Deuteronomy 15 "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them."
=>If you still cannot see the truth here at least remove the words slave trade from your thought process.
Fred – I looked into the claims in your post and we have some disconnects. You say that "purchasing male and female slaves" per Leviticus 25:44 "has nothing to do with what most people consider to be the slave trade". I am sorry but this is exactly the definition of the slave trade. Why would it not be? In verse 44 and 45 you claim that the referenced slaves volunteer to be slaves. To be clear the slaves from foreign lands were slaves in every respect. The local persons who become slaves were generally desti.tute and starving and forced to become salves to stay alive. You called this voluntary slavery. The law looked at these types of slaves as two different classes of slaves, but at the end of the day both types were slaves in every respect. You used the term indentured servant which I had to disregard as it showed up no where in scripture. The term bondsman was used but after checking several references it just means slave. Children of both types of slaves were property of the master and were passed onto the masters heirs as chattel. So, although we have drawn some distinctions between types of slaves they are still slaves and they are still bought and sold and their children are not their own property but that of the master. I find no new information that differentiates these slaves from the ones we have been discussing for days. It is still a travesty and it is still very much a slave trade.
You reference Exodus 21:16 which I understand but don't find applicable to our discussion. Kidnapping is illegal and kidnapers will be killed regardless if when caught they they still have the kidnapped person or if they have already sold him. I am unsure what point you are making with this. Are you saying kidnapping is a significant source of slaves? Because I don't see any text to support that.
Your passage about taking in a runaway slave I can't find any where. Can you provide chapter and verse?
Then you go on to quote Deuteronomy 15 "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master. 16 Let them live among you wherever they like and in whatever town they choose. Do not oppress them.”
I do not see this either. Deuteronomy has a similar message in 15:7-11 but it does not reference a slave, it says "a poor man". But the rest of the story is similar. So I need your help to rationalize the reference above. Some I just cannot find and some seem like misquotes.
You asked if I would remove "slave trade" from my thought process. I am more certain now than before that slave trade is appropriate. Not owning your own children in dehumanizing.
jbhollen
Leviticus 25:44“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
=>here the law is specifying Nations where volunteers may be purchased because you were not allowed slaves from all the nations just specific ones. You would not have pulled this verse out if read to the negative "you may not buy slaves from these 7 Nations.
I don't think you are exactly right here either. As I understand it the law recognized two types of slaves. Slaves from foreign lands which were slaves in every respect (not volunteers), and local slaves that had to enter bondage voluntarily in order to survive. Reading the whole chapter I do not see any 7 nations from which you cannot buy slaves. I just see the differentiation between local and foreign slaves. With maybe the exception of Leviticus 25:42 which says "my servants which I brought out of the land of Egypt shall not be sold as slaves".
jbhollen
My posts are being delayed, as I look at your time stamp. Good chance they may just disappear.
I need to wait until I am near a lap top. Have a good weekend, I will try and follow up Monday.
Sounds good. Have a great weekend.
"=>here the law is specifying Nations where volunteers may be purchased because you were not allowed slaves from all the nations just specific ones."
Despite the best efforts of apologists to refer to biblical slavery as merely indentured servitude or as bf does here as merely "volunteers," the plain language betrays these interpretations. Lev 25:44-46 clearly distinguishes fellow Israelites, who were perhaps more in line with "volunteer" indentured servants, from foreign born slaves. The distinction is between one who is contractually engaged (i.e. a "volunteer" to an agreement) and one who is purchased and owned as descendable personal property, i.e. chattel. An "indentured servant" or "volunteer" is bound to a term of service whereas a chattel slave became the owner's "possession . . . for ever." This latter form of chattel slavery is exactly the form of slavery that mere mortals eventually recognized as morally repugnant. The bible expressly condones this immoral practice.
It shouldn't be surprising that apologists will defend biblical chattel slavery given they are equally willing to defend the slaughter of children and infants; completely disregarding any notion of judgment based on an exercise of free will, completely disregarding any notion of empathy for their suffering, and with complete rejection of any personal moral culpability in offering their various incarnations of a Nuremberg defense by placing their self-serving deference to perceived authority over any and all other moral considerations. This is the danger of fundamentalism . . .
jbhollen
The Bible addresses many forms of slavery from the servants of Abraham to servants of God today or reference to being slaves to sin or in bondage to sin. God mentioned many times I am the lord your God who freed you from the brutal slavery the Hebrew were subject to under Egypt. God allows his own chosen ones to brought into slavery and also frees them from slavery. I do not see how allowing what is not optimal (slavery under a kind master) meaning the same thing as condoning slavery. God allows even harsh brutal oppressive masters to act sinfully against their slaves as well as others. This is not the same as condoning sin.
Perhaps we just need a better word that does not leave the impression of approval for wrong thoughts and behavior.
First, the slavery referenced in the biblical verses below has nothing to do with being a servant. It is slavery. Secondly, it has nothing to do with voluntary enslavement to an unobservable deity. It is slavery. It’s the ownership of one human being by another including the ownership of children produced by your slaves and the passing of your slaves to your heirs as livestock. The verses below allow slavery, instruct in the rules of slavery including the beating and killing of slaves and even instruct in the finer points of selling your daughter into slavery. You said "being owned by a kind master" is "not optimal". What nice words to try and paint slavery as something other than a detestable sin. Lastly, I thought I had seen all the rationalizations and denials regarding your gods condoning of slavery but you provide a new one. You said "Perhaps we just need a better word that does not leave the impression of approval for wrong thoughts and behavior". The answer is no, you can't use another word. The bible calls it slavery and you're not allowed to edit scripture so you can sleep better at night. How perverse must a persons belief system be when after reading of the human suffering of slavery condoned in the bible, even including fathers selling their daughters into se.xual slavery, that instead of recoiling from the horror it is you suggest using a different word that doesn't make it all sound so bad. This is why I think beliefs such as these are dangerous. If a person can rationalize the righteousness of human slavery, what other behavior can be justified?
However, you may purchase male or female slaves…(Leviticus 25:44-46)
If you buy a Hebrew slave…(Exodus 21:2-6)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave… (Exodus 21:7-11)
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand…(Exodus 21:20-21)
redzoa
The consequences of fundamentalism is not limited to faith in God.
You claim the bible expressly condones the immoral practice typically associate with slavery. That would not be possible as such immoral thoughts or actions are contrary to goodness regardless of faith in God. Certainly in recent history we can observe immoral thoughts and actions against slaves or associated with slavery as a whole. Exactly what the situation was 2,000 or more years ago with the Hebrew is unclear however immoral thoughts and actions seem to be part of mankind. Based on the text slavery was the way of the world and the Hebrew were setting themselves apart from the world by erecting laws to protect the interests of slaves. The overall evidence weighs heavy towards doing the right thing in a land of brutal oppression of certain people because the Hebrew were holly, set apart for God and redeemed from the bondage of slavery themselves.
You say that we really don't know what the situation was 2,000 years ago regarding slavery and that the Hebrew's were probably doing the right thing. Then you reference immoral thoughts and actions regarding recent slavery. Are you saying that the biblical acceptance of slavery is only applicable to the ancient Hebrew and that the passages allowing and instructing on slavery are null and do not apply today?
jbhollen
Love your neighbor as you love yourself would make it impossible to justify any form of marginalizing another person. Some people treated slaves as family members in recent history and some did so back in the days of Abraham. The African Slave Trade justified by some verses of the Bible was in fact a violation of the law the used to justify this wrongful behavior (you could not buy or sell kidnapped people). The abolition of slavery is demanded by biblical principles. It was allowed by necessity of the time and place and the law put restrictions on the masters and gave protections to slaves. Consider that a slave who ran away from his Hebrew master was to be treated kindly and not returned to the master.
It is pure speculation but the peoples were not ready for right relationships between labor and capital. One thing for certain their relationship with God then and now was not right otherwise laws would not be necessary to limit abuse of others.
believerfred – We have been discussing for a week biblical text that very specifically instructs in, allows and sets rules around slavery. The fact that you found a contradictory verse is not surprising but that is an entirely different discussion. Are you saying that because "loving your neighbor" would not allow you to marginalize people, that you don't agree that the owning of slaves, beating of slaves, selling of daughters into slavery and taking ownership of slaves children does just that? Marginalizing is a very soft term for what these verses actually allow. Are you now backing out of the conclusion that the bible allowed slavery? I thought we left that behind.
Regarding the rationalization around the African Slave trade as they were kidnapped, the verse we discussed specifically provided for the death penalty for kidnappers. It did not say anything about the disposition of those kidnapped who were sold into slavery. I really can't draw a conclusion on this.
You say the abolition of slavery is demanded by biblical principles, but the verses we have spent so much time on (I will not repost them all) specifically allows and instructs on slave ownership. The first lines of several verses: However, you may purchase male or female slaves..., If you buy a Hebrew slave..., When a man sells his daughter as a slave...When a man strikes his male or female slave...are hardly an order to abolish slavery. How do you reconcile this against your point that the bible demands abolition of slavery?
You say in your post that slavery was allowed as a necessity of the time. Does that mean that the verses in the bible that instruct on slave ownership are no longer true?
Lastly, you refer to the story of the run away slave again. In a previous post I told you that I found that passage in the bible but it is about a "poor man" not a slave.
Fred, we have had a great detailed discussion this last week but as we drew towards making a conclusion you lost focus and by appearances forgot everything we have discussed so far. I am going to assume that the conclusion we were headed toward was contrary to your faith and you just cannot go there. I asked four questions above. If you have time to answer them that would be great.
jbhollen
" I am going to assume that the conclusion we were headed toward was contrary to your faith "
=>No, not contrary but I was getting tangled up because of where the next step would lead.
Well, it kind of sounds like the same thing but no need for me to press it. If you like we can call it a "call it a day" on this topic. I hope we engage on other topics in the future. I enjoyed our exchanges.
jbhollen
"Are you now backing out of the conclusion that the bible allowed slavery? "
=>The Bible allowed slavery and God allowed slavery. Noah who "found favor in the eyes of the Lord" cursed one of his three sons; "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers". There were 10 clans that descended from Canaan's son that became nations. It is speculated that the verse "out of these nations you may buy slaves" was based upon this curse.
Noah lived among the most wicked imaginable of mankind before the flood. I think it safe to assume wickedness included slavery to all sorts of sin including brutalizing slaves as the totality of wickedness is portrayed as bondage to sin. The bondage the Hebrew were under in Egypt was oppressive and sinful . God repeats several times I am the Lord your God who delivered you from bondage. The theme of the Bible is man falls into bondage and God sets you free. The price paid to Judas for Jesus was the price of a slave. We were set free from slavery to sin by Jesus who paid the ransom so we can be free. There are two master and you cannot serve them both. Sin or God is the choice of master. We choose to be slaves to one or the other.
My point is the word slave has meaning. In any context outside the presence (i.e. being in Christ or filled with love for God)of God a slave is not free and is in bondage to his master (Egypt was symbolic of slave master, symbolic of the things of this world, symbolic of evil, sin etc.). In the presence of God we find complete freedom from the ways of this world. We freely give ourselves to God and consider it a blessing to be a servant of our master.
The Bible as the greatest story ever told is the story of salvation. The redemption of our soul from death (bondage to deception) into life eternal. This theme begins with the regeneration of life out of a dark abyss when God said let there be light. The creation "let it be and it was so" is the regeneration of life, salvation out of darkness and the redemption of the eternal soul.
In this context the Bible condones "slavery" and in this context "slavery" is part of "Gods" plan.
Believerfred – thanks for the post and for presenting a conclusion. I really enjoyed our discussion and look forward to the next.
jbhollen
Thanks for making me think through how a good God could condone wrong behavior.
poor god ... all that power and he can be so easily stymied by the birth control pill ...
I'm still waiting for the follow-up article, "What Harry Potter got Wrong About Dragons".
Christian logic is "Heaven is real. Read the bible."
By that logic:
Hogwarts is real. Read the Harry Potter books.
Superman's fortress of solitude is real. Read the comic books.
Sesame Street is real. Watch the TV show.
Seriously folks. Grow up!
You forgot Flintstones being historical fact.
You should do some research before posting this stuff here.
Lex Luthor is behind global warming. That is his plan to melt the north pole and get rid of Superman's fortress. This is important stuff that you should not make fun of!
Sesame Street isn't real? \sad face/
This kid has an eyewitness account of heaven, and there other accounts as well. If you won't believe an eyewitness then you are most likely afraid to believe. It's difficult to believe in a holy and pure God when deep down you know you are accountable for what you say and do. Making believe he doesn't exist won't make him go away.
You are constructing fallacious ad hominem arguments when you accuse someone of being afraid to believe and not wanting to be held accountable. Perhaps if I accused you of believing only because you are afraid to die then you would see that the accusation has no bearing on the truth value of whether or not you are correct to believe. But mostly you just seem to be ignorant of or in denial of the reality that most atheists do not have a belief in any gods because they have concluded there are no good reasons to hold such a belief.
You also seem too willing to accept this "eyewitness" account at face value. It is an extraordinary claim for which there are more plausible explanations. Yesterday I saw a real life leprechaun; it was pink with purple polka dots. Do you believe my eyewitness account? Or are you afraid to?
♰ ♰ ♰ Dyslexic doG Is droL ♰ ♰ ♰
TP OMG you are so frigging stupid...NO child is alike.....every child is an INDIVIDUAL (as I PSYCHOOGIST I can see that) and they learn at different stages..some know more than others...etc.....I am not like you who thinks all are alike.......sad little woman
Don't psychologists make generalities all of the time?
Isn't it necessary to get a general idoa of what is 'normal'?
you seriously need help.
and you need to back off unless you got something .......
Calling me stupid when you think you and your imaginary friend have any say over what a woman does with her body??? Are you seriously that delusional? Isn't lying a sin in your crazed mind? You're no psychologist...a patient maybe, a liar most definitely but that's about it.
Considering his poor language and grammar, and the fact that he is delusional, proves he is simply a liar.
I know of no one who is a psychologist that has such a poor command of the English language.
We need to watch out or he'll throw a temper tantrum and threaten us all with slander again...lol. Silly boy doesn't know what a dictionary is. His anger alone proves he is not fit to work with anything living. I'm guessing he collects food stamps and failed out of high school.
I can also picture him living in his mom's basement.
I can picture his Mom and Dad being siblings.
(cue kermi and his hateful angry rants)
so you concede? you know you lost the argument....
I have never heard a psychologist call a stranger a retard.
jbhollen
There is no reason why you would have. NO psychologist would ever use that term. It should offend him.
Nor have I but then again I've never heard a psychologist be as angry this person is. I say he's a fraud when it comes to what he actually does and a liar on everything else. He's probably not married (unless she has the same low level intellect), lacks in friends and education; the child of inbreeding. He's an obvious danger to society and needs to be locked away.
and you are pathetic to assume that ...you never give thought to that maybe I have to answer a lot of blogs in a short amount of time..and that I TYPE?> ever thought of that..or are you just purposefully bbeing a jackazz? you atheists are pathetic to think one thing of a person yet not use critical thinking skills to think MAYBE there are other factors
hmmmm ... nah, you're just a liar. That explanation fits all the facts.
ahh yes..psychologists never say bad things in their lives.they are perfect little angels....no one has shown me to e a liar....you all name call but bring nothing to the table to show it
kermit
You have claimed to be from Simpson College, but they do not have a program for psychology. Socialogy is the closest they come, unless there are more Simpson colleges.
Your language and grammer indicate less than a high school education. If you have more than that, it certainly does not show.
You have claimed to know god, but you cannot exclude all of the other possibilities, so you have proven to be delusional, lying to yourself and refusing to look at it logically.
You have been caught lying, and no matter how hard you proclaim god is your master, you cannot even show your god exists.
The people I know in the psychology field were taught that diction, grammar, and a good vocabulary are important to show you are an authority figure, to increase your apparent credibility. I know this is taught in educational psychology, yet you don't seem to care that you use poor grammar, name call, and derogatory terms.
What would you have us think of you?
WHICH SImpspon College? you must be referring to the one somewhere in the Midwest...there are two of them.....I went to Simpson University which DOES have a program in Psychology....recheck your sources please
Kermit studied at the PantsOnFire campus of Simpson U.
"no one has shown me to e a liar"
BS kermi!! Every time we counter you when you say you know god exists and we tell you that you only believe, we prove you to be a liar! There is no valid reason for anyone to believe anything from you if you can't be honest about simple definitions and you come across as an angry 5 year old needing a time out. Your extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I do suggest you leave Mommy basement and go out in the public looking for an anger management course...you need that and some meds and soon the delusions will disappear. Pathological lying is not normal...seek some help for that too.
You must have a really sad life if you spend so much time trolling Christians and harassing them. The God you deny will hold you accountable and you saying he is mythology won't make things better for you. You won't be able to talk your way out of what you deserve by saying, "Lord I didn't believe you existed, this is all your fault." There's plenty of proof and your refusal to even make an attempt to look at it will be evidence against you. You can be saved if you turn to Him and ask for mercy and then follow him.
I always find it fascinating when believers have no trouble calling out non-believers for their supposed transgressions, yet skip right past the obvious bad behavior of believers in the same thread.
Steve: Not a sad life at all and how very judgemental of you to assume such a thing. This is not a Christian blog, it is merely a belief blog and thus no trolling Christians is happening-sorry to burst that wee bubble you reside in.
As for that god I deny holding me accountable, provide evidence it exists and I plus the other 5 billion people on this plant who don't believe in it, will have reason to worry. You can claim proof all you wish but many before you have and many before you have failed. I'm not worried, nor should you be. Imaginary friends are for the weak and some of us are not that weak to need them.
kermit4jc,
Good. I hope this puts to end any discussions about how bad abortions are. It's got to be reassuring for a mother to know that if she decides to get one, she is giving her fetus a fast pass to heaven, which is every Christian's dream.
man you got terrible logic..a human is nOT God..a human is nOT the Judge......your feeble attempt is hardly worth any more comment
kermit4jc,
No need for you to respond again. You already have.
"its all about understanding the literature....sin is a conscious decision one makes to do wrong....there is also the understanding of what death is...etc etc..childen do not have that capablitiy.....thus the age of accountability..what is that age? depends on the individual child"
- kermit4jc
that is still a feeble and weak attempt to justify abortion...GOD takes life and reserves that right..not man....a woman has NO right to take the life of a baby....it shows she has no value for life of others ......abortion is MURDER...God says you shall NOT murder....
kermit4jc,
Speaking of feeble and weak, you said heaven was the outcome for babies because they hadn't sinned and didn't know what death was. They were not accountable.
If your original answer was WRONG, just say so.
what> My answer was nmot wrong...but YOu are trying to feebly justify abortion as ok..cause the babies go to heaven..as I said...murder is not ok...it is not justifiable
"a woman has NO right to take the life of a baby....it shows she has no value for life of others ......abortion is MURDER"
First off, this is settled...see Roe v Wade. If it was murder women would be in jail but that is not the case.
Second, have you for one second considered the many reasons why an abortion might happen? It is you who doesn't care about the lives of others when you would wish a child brought in to this world that risks a life of poverty; child abuse, neglect...to name a few of the horrific things that could happen. If a woman is raped, it is extremely immoral to insist she carry that child to term and then be forced to relive the nightmare of the act of violence every day-how do you think that would affect a child (outside of the fact that people like you get your pocketbooks lined as a result)?
If women can't have an abortion legally they will resort to much more dangerous ways of having it done-not that you care about the woman, you only care about ensuring your imaginary friend is appeased-no care for human life at all.
Third, when your god makes an appearance then and only then is it entitled to an opinion. You DO NOT speak for your god (I get that the believers are the only voice it has, given how it is non-existent).
Fourth, You are not capable of having an abortion, so you really don't merit an opinion on the matter.
Take the time to read Gregory Paul's paper Holocaust of the Children and you'll see how your god is the greatest abortionist EVER.
Christians have lost this battle, just like they're quickly losing the LGBT battle...you only look like a bigger dolt the more you speak out against these things and you help bury your religion-kudos to the uneducated like you...you benefit us.
If you think all abortion is wrong, google 'spinal bifida'.
kermit4jc,
Here are YOUR 3 reasons why children who die should go to heaven IN YOUR OWN WORDS:
(1) sin is a conscious decision one makes to do wrong
(2) there is also the understanding of what death is...etc etc..childen do not have that capablitiy
(3) age of accountability..what is that age? depends on the individual child
Now you are saying that this is NOT APPLICABLE and ILLOGICAL to support.
Oooops.
to support abortion? no..cause yodont factor in that abortion is murder....that women have no right to take the life..etc.......if you wanna ignore that..be my gust..just don't misrepresent me as you been doing
This reminds me of when redzoa and I both stated that the killing of infants in Numbers 31 was immoral and one of truthfollower01's retorts was:
"I can't see how God does the children wrong by ushering them into His kingdom for all eternity. Death is a blessing to the Christian. God doesn’t wrong these children’s lives by removing them from the world."
The mass infanticide was indiscriminate, but I guess that was god's right too. God is perfect (and unchanging) and morality is objective, but somehow it is immoral for humans to follow his examples.
I can imagine this being the last thought that suicide bombers have before indiscriminately taking out everyone on the bus.
that's a NOT an example...that's GOD being Judge..WE cannot be judges cause WE are not God..WE are NOT perfect Holy and Righteous....it is NOT in out nature ......
kermit4jc,
God MURDERED every child, baby, fetus and embryo on the face of the earth. They had committed ZERO SINS.
Your WEAK argument is suddenly not about the CHILDREN, but about how they died.
If your 3 reasons for CHILDREN going to heaven were valid, it would be IRRELEVENT how they died since they were innocent. Not very good LOGIC.
your emotional appeal does not work for argument.....EVERYONE dies...children or adults...you cannot show that God murdered anyone....you cannot show that God has no right to take the life....
kermit4jc
"EVERYONE dies...children or adults...you cannot show that God murdered anyone"
Yep. EVERYONE dies... you cannot show that pro-choice people murdered anyone.
stupid logic on your part...first iM referring to God as judge.....second..no human has right to take life like as in abortion.....sad feeble attempt to justify murdering children by their mothers
kermit4jc,
First of all, MURDER is an illegal activity. Abortion is LEGAL so you don't know what you are talking about.
Name ONE SIN COMMITTED by all the children, babies, fetuses and embryos that JUSTIFIED KILLING THEM.
I'm waiting.
and outside your bronze age story book which is so patently flawed in so many ways, how do you know any of this about judges and rights and punishments? Are you just making it up? Did god speak to you?
@Kermit, your god is the biggest abortionist of all. Millions of miscarriages annually. Your god makes all human abortionists look like amateurs.
so what? HE has that rightl.HE gave life..NO human has the right to MURDER children
wow ... all that power and he can be so easily stymied by the birth control pill ...
pathetic response.......God allows people to make the choices...that's how evil comes anbout..people make wring choices...God is not a puppetmaster....
free will is a crock. Either god is in control and has a plan, in which case there is no free will ... or god is not in control and has no plan and there is free will. Your hocus pocus makes no sense.
makes no sense to you cause you think in worldly terms......you make God to be only human and nothing more....experiencing ONL yin human terms of time and space as we do.......God is beyond that.....he can still be in control and we still have free will.
retreat into mysticism is the first refuge of the cornered fool
kermi: Wow, you are one ignorant loser. It really doesn't matter what you say...your ilk lost this battle a very long time and ago. What a woman does with her body is not your business nor the business of your imaginary friend. Abortion is not murder. Buy a dictionary and stop lying about being a psychologist-you're nothing but a fraud!
kermit4jc
What right does a non-human have to judge human behavior? Are we like God's pets, swatted if we shed on the furniture, or chew on his loafers? Punished for following our nature?
HE is the giver of lifel.He is the standard...He is the judge
cult speak
you fooltard kermi!! Do you need a lesson on how people are born?? Your imaginary friend had no hand in any of it. Are you that uneducated...seriously? Do the world a favor...find a cave and live there since you seem to like living in accordance to the dark ages!! You are clearly delusional.
@Kermit
In your opinion, when does "ensoulment" take place?
Is blastocysticide the same as infanticide?
Are you seriously proposing that jealousy is the motivating emotion required to keep your loved ones safe? If your answer is yes, then you are a sick puppy and probably have a secret room in your basement for those who cause you to be jealous. Jealousy is a black emotion attributed to those who do not have their head screwed on straight. If a deity is omnipotent what possible situation would cause him/her/it to be jealous other than a serious psychosis. Think about it. You have absolute control over everything and everyone. No one can make the slightest move without it being part of your plan. You control absolutely every aspect of the universe. And you are jealous? What could you possibly be jealous of? You control it all! This is yet another absolute debunk of of the nonsense you spew. I can t wait to hear what you "really" mean by jealousy and that it really means something else in the bible and that I really don't understand because I don't speak ancient aramaic. Kermit – save some face and don't respond. We are all laughing at you even in advance of your ridiculous response.
None of you really know what what you are saying. Both of you know nothing of a universe you can't see, neither of you have even seen a true believer, one of peace and serenity and of a mind far beyond this trivial bickering of stupidity in "who exist and doesn't". This is a clear example of the blind leading the blind. I find it even more annoyingly humorous how the paradox of atheist comment on a religious post that was not intended for nonbelievers...if religion doesn't even exist, what does it matter? I'm more closer to believing a boy going to heaven that is sure of himself than a bunch of dimwit arguers that gain nothing in their attempt to override beliefs, there is no purpose logically believing in nothing, you are nothing.
"If religion doesn't exist.." What are you talking about? What bonehead said religion doesn't exist? It's everywhere. But other than that you really put us in our place! I really needed that "talking to". Thank you very much and god bless!
On the other hand I would like to answer your question as to why non believers don't just stay home and be quiet. Religious beliefs are corrosive to rational thought and a detrement to our society as a whole. While our world wide scholastic ranking keeps sliding religious zealots are trying to teach the creation myth in our schools instead of real science. Leaders have gone to war because god spoke to them (Bush). There are those seeking high office in this country who thnk the end of the world is some big payoff for them. These people aspire to be in a position to make war and have their finger on the nuclear button. So no, we will not be quiet. Irrational beliefs are dangerous and a break from reality that makes the final step to violence that much easier as we see all the time in the news. As long as people spout this crazy stuff, we will also be there offering a voice of reason.
You said: "...atheist comment on a religious post that was not intended for nonbelievers...."
It would seem that even in oblivion, they don't teach basic reading and comprehension skills:
Lets us read, together, the gospel of the CNN Belief Blog...chapter 1, verse 1:
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team.
How sad one assumes that with the word "belief" comes exclusive rights to what can be written...typical of the unread and ignorant.
Sorry – I have to pile on here.
– A universe that I cannot see? No one knows anything about a universe that is not observable in any way. This is a "sound of one hand clapping" thing right?
– A true believer? One of peace and serenity? Haven't seen much of this. Evangelicals are are pretty outspoken about atheists and are not very peaceful and serene about it in my experience.
– Trivial bickering about what exists and doesn't exist? If it is that trivial why worry about it? Why don't you jump on the free-thinking bandwagon? If you do you will realize that the danger of religion in not trivial.
– Atheism is not belief in nothing. It is belief in the natural laws of the universe as we know them today and being prepared to modify those views if empirical evidence teaches us something new.
– "You are nothing..." – Ok, this is a teachable moment. Pay attention. We are conversing over the internet so I cannot be nothing. If I am nothing, then to whom were you writing the post?
" neither of you have even seen a true believer, one of peace and serenity and of a mind far beyond this trivial bickering of stupidity in "who exist and doesn't". "
You'd know this how exactly? The commenters on this blog obviously do not represent all believers/disbelievers. I know plenty of good Christians who follow the golden rule and know enough that their belief is merely that, it is personal. These are the same people whom, while they hold the bible true, they do not use it to justify hatred; denial of equal rights; or much other crap that is detrimental and harmful.
Why exactly is it you feel we shouldn't have a voice? Many of us were believers and have a good understanding of the belief system. Now if you wish to say that, then please go to the article on Hinduism and say it also-it'll make you look like a hypocrite but hey, at least then you'd comprehend what it is to put the shoe on the other foot (so to speak). For far too many year, Christians have tried to shut people up and in this age of enlightenment people are finally pushing back. That stated, we will continue to be here...maybe FAUX news would meet your standards for the types of commenters you seem to like....probably not many Atheists there.
Nobody has seen heaven, NDE is not going to convince anyone about heaven and Hollywood cannot get it right either.
Regardless of NDE, heaven is for real. Read the Bible!
You do not know if "heaven is real" or not, since none of the supernatural claims in the bible can be verified. You are confusing belief with knowledge.
Those who believe do so from a place of faith, not proof.... there is enough that makes sense to us (besides not standing the idea that humans are as good as it gets).... so you're right- we aren't sure from a scientific background- but from a place of spirituality and faith. Faith isn't a feeling... it's a way of life. My best wishes to you.
Then you have no reason to claim something even you claim to not have any proof of as real. You can honestly say you BELIEVE heaven is real, but to say that it IS real, is dishonest.
Faith replaces logic and reason.
You want god and Heaven to be real, therefore you believe it.Your belief without evidence places it firmly in the category of wishful thinking.
WHO? not me..I know God exists.....what I want is truth..and I found it....
People believe in a lot of things that "make sense to them".
Astrology
Reincarnation
Ponzi schemes
Mediums
Faith healing
Area 51 aliens
Magic crystals
Demon possession
Tarot cards
Nigerian princes
Homeopathic cures
9/11 Conspiracies
Ghosts
Fake moon landings
Obama being Muslim
Creationism ...
Blind faith is nothing but blind faith. There is no texture or substance to it. You decide to believe is something that is not only untestable and unverifiable but impossible by the rules of nature as we know them today. Your faith is not an asset. It is a liability with consequences.
kermi: No you don't know that god exists. You believe god exists and there is an extreme difference between knowledge and belief. You are a dishonest person. The fact that you fail to comprehend the difference between knowledge and belief and refuse to answer basic questions, leads one to believe that you have been dishonest about many other things (your education largely).
Geez Kermi. You have to remember on this one that you are arguing with a fellow believer (TruthPrevails1) about an invisible friend. You're kind of harsh with her. And where do you get off calling into question her credentials as an RN because you differ on semantics regarding the impossible and unprovable. Your posts across the board look like the work of Jethro Bodine who boasts a 6th grade education. An appropriate biblical quote here would be the story of the adulteress. He who is without sin.... Oh, wait a minute, those verses (7:53 – 8:11) were added to John by someone unknown in the 5th century. Wasn't it you who was arguing an unchanging scripture over the last 2000 years? You just can win can you?
jb: I'm not a fellow believer of any form, not sure where you're getting that.
Sorry, I misunderstood. Did not mean to give offense.
jb: None taken.
I mistakenly referenced TruthPrevains1 in my post of 4/27 @ 12:17 ct. I meant to reference JIllinoisRN.
kermi take a lesson from jb...this is what honesty looks like.
Thanks TruthPrevails1. I also want to point out that in an earlier exchange with kermi he called me on statement I made and after looking into it he was correct. I reposted and accepted my error. I am not relating this to call out my own actions but rather to highlight the contrast with apologist behavior. Acceptance of being in error for the apologist is a crisis of faith and just cannot be. When confronted with a contradiction in their dogma or scripture or just the ugliness of some of the things the bible says the first reaction of the apologists is to state absolute knowledge that it cannot be so. Secondly, they will read and research before performing some spectacular gymnastics of logic to debunk the affront to their faith. These are often the same apologists that say they employ the "scientific method" to prove that claims made in the bible are true.
Yes, however he is one of those people who if called out for something he will spin it back to you.
WHEN I do get confronted with errors..i will accept it...so far no one has been able to sufficiently do so
I presented that three gospels provided three completely different accounts of jesus' last words. Your response was that he must have said them all even though in two of the three gospels it specifically said that he died immediately after uttering the words. You do not present any scriptural or other justification for your response. You refuse to see contradiction where it so plainly exists. You are not capable.
While we are at it here is another. If jesus died just before the sabbath started on friday night as evidenced by Joseph of Arimathea's rush to get the body entombed by nightfall and then jesus was resurrected sometime before dawn on Sunday as is reported by three of the four gospels (one disagrees), how do you reconcile that jesus said he will lie in the earth for three days and three nights as Jonah was in the the belly of the whale? By my reckoning friday at sunset to Sunday at dawn is a day and a half.
it does NOT Specifically say he died IMMEDIATELY the MOMENT after he spoke those words.....that's you adding words into it.....I do not see the word immediate....or this was all he said.....that's you adding..again an REASONABLE person would put the WHOKLE story togtehr...he said all those thing just before he died.....
Kermi- It is impossible to read the two verses below and draw the conclusion that after he "gave up the ghost" in Luke 23:46. That he somehow still uttered the different words of John 19:30 before "giving up the ghost" again. If you cannot see this then you have absolutely no objectivity and are incapable of honest discourse.
Luk 23:46
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
I USE REASON..ant rhe MOST LOGICAL and REASONABLE explanation is he said ALl those words....periode.....I thin kyou are theone not being objective and honest
to JEW>.ANY part of day/night counts as full day and night....Friday (one day) Saturday (second day) and sunday (third day) again read it theu the eyes of JEWS>.not thru thru your American eyes that pretends the Bible was originally written in USA
Jesus said three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale. Jew or not there is no other way to interpret it. Friday night, Saturday day, and Sunday night equal two nights and one day. If Jesus said three days your argument might hold water but he very specifically said three days and three nights. Once again, all you know for sure is that you can't be wrong. In other posts you said I could not understand because I did not speak multiple languages, then it was because I did not understand Greek translation and now it's because I don't think like a Jew. You are really getting pathetic in your defenses. Why don't you go ahead and try saying "your right". "I don't understand the contradiction"? It might be a growing experience for you.
AND IM almost guessing that context means carp to you......I pretty much showed you that y uare ignoranrt off the Greek/Hebrew languages...that yo uare ignorant of Jewish culture..it has become apparent you don tknow anything of the sort...you still pretend that the BIble was originally written by AMericans in the English language..don't feel bad..i used to think that way too..till I remmemebered this was a Book by a different culture, time and language from my own....
OMG what a weak pathetic argument...that verse COULD have been in there..but even if it wasn't..thats ONE passage out of a HUGE series? PLUS...NONE of that passage evre changes ANYTHING...Jesus would have had the same thoughts....."those without sin be the first tocast stones" the passage perfectly describes Jesus trachings elsewhere...so that did nOT cnage a thing....second..as far as I am informed by TP herself..she is nOT a believer.....
So you originally said that you believed the bible has been unchanged since it was first put together in 325CE. And that the letters and gospels that date back another 200 years have not changed either. Now you admit that a famous parable held dear by christians for 1500 years was added by someone unknown in the 5th century but it doesn't matter? Which is it? The scriptures never changed? Or they changed but it doesn't matter? It can't be both. You need to listen to what you are saying because others are.
kermit
"WHO? not me..I know God exists.....what I want is truth..and I found it..."
You have no idea what the truth is.
You do not want the truth, you want your belief to be the truth, but it is delusion to claim your belief actually is the truth.
I know you do not know there is a god, because I know you have not yet excluded all other possibilities.
So you are dishonest, to yourself first, and then everyone else when you claim you know, and that you know the truth.
WHY must you lie abou tme? do you suppose you are in my mind and live MY life and think MY thoughts? you are an arrogant little pig....excuse me to say.but your remarks are totally unmerited....I AM an honest person...just cause I disagree with you doe snot make me dishonest...you are the one who is dishonest since you have to make up poo poo about me
I'm with you on this one kermi. I doubt that lgaftr can be in your mind. I think it is crowded in there already....
TP: Can you imagine how messed up those who seek Kermy's counseling are?
knock off your snarky remarks..i been in the practice over 10 years...if kids are messed up cause of me why am I still in it? retard
sam: He refuses to answer me as to how he would react if a parent of one of the children he supposedly counsels came to him and said that they thought the child was gay. I personally wouldn't trust a child in his care.
I DID answer you..I said first of all..no parehnt would ASK me such sa thing cause That is NOT the things I deal witth! sheesh....
If you did, I missed it and how are you so certain that question would not be posed to you? You are apparently a child psychologist, so a question like that could very well be asked. What would you tell a parent?
Yeah. I imagine if he is a counselor (and it is a big IF), he is a pretty fvcked up one.
pretty fvcked up one..then why have I been in it for 10 years? why have I been requested by parents, teachers and clinicians to help with their children? lol..you seem to wish I was fvcked up......too bad....
jbhollen: kermy is every bit as well educated as jethro bodine. simpson university is as accreditied as bugtussle elementary
Sam
Simpson U motto "A noble spirit embiggens the smallest man"
Use of the word embiggens is of course cromulent.
I have not made up "poo poo" about you. (You learn that fancy language at Simpson?)
You are lying to yourself. You have not excluded all other possibilities and for all you know, satan inspired your bible and you are walking with him.
I have read you correctly, and have not made up anything.
You claim to know YOUR god, but you actually have no idea. To think otherwise is , in fact, delusion.
Sorry you disagree with me, but clearly you have not learned the difference between truth/ knowledge and belief. Your belief is not knowledge, and it certainly is not truth.
OMG WHO are You to say I have not? I say poo poo cause I cannot use the other word in here....clearlyt YUO ncant handle the fact I know God.....you want to dimisss it.....why is that? I can name some probable reasons..but IM not going to sink to your level and assume everything about y9o..so tell me..WHY do you WANT to dismiss that I know God? what about it troubles you? what is it to you?
kermi: The length of time you have been in practice means diddly asto whether or not you are good...many 'bad' Doctor's practice for years, it is not uncommon.
Igafr: Simpson must not have provided dictionaries or kermi just willfully choose not to pick one up. He does seem to like to make up definitions to fit his stories as he goes along. He is a very dishonest, untrustworthy man.
kermit
You do not know god. You BELIEVE you know god, but really you do not. You have things you have experienced that TO YOU mean god, but how did you exclude all other possibilities then?
Please show how you excluded ALL other possibilities, and I will believe you, otherwise it should be sufficient proof to you that since you CANNOT ec.lude all other possibilities, you cannot traverse the line between belief to knowledge. If you actually believe you know, you in fact are deluding yourself.
Let's start easy. How do you know you aren't just a pawn of satan, that satan didn't actually inspire your book and gave god the credit, and that you actually walk with satan? How did you exclude that possibility?
Second question in approximately 10,000 parts.
How have you excluded all of the other gods individually ( there are approx 10,000 I have found).
Please say how you have excluded them individually.
Then tell me what cause and effect relationship you can show that is your evidence that you "know god".
Without an exclusive cause and effect relationship, all you have done is taken an experience or experiences, and proclaimed them to be god, with no actual relationship evident.
Show your work kermit.
sir.....this is last post to you....since you again are so arrogant to think you know my thoughts and such....one does no tneccesiarlily need to go thru all the other gods..anymore than one studies the true money.....in other words....when one goes to work in a bank..they are NOT shown all the counterfeists..they get to know the real one....I get to know God..it is consistent in my 20plus years...I feel his presence...I experience his presence...I do not experience the presence of others......anyhow..this is last post as you seem to be troubled that I have knowledge of God.
Stop the lying kermi...you can't possibly know god...you only believe you do, to claim otherwise is dishonest. Look up the meanings of the words belief and knowledge then maybe you'll comprehend why you're being called a liar!
There are many valid reasons for not believing in god-outside of the bible there is no evidence and using the bible as evidence is circular. The god of the bible is the least likely to exist due to how wretched it is-it allows for slavery; rape; oppression of women/LGBT; child abuse; murder...not such a loving god you believe in!! Maybe if you actually read your bible at face value you too would comprehend how truly vicious the god you believe in is. It most definitely is not worth worshiping and you not worthy of respect (and until you admit that LGBT is natural and that you only believe your god exists, you won't be).
Kermit
Since you continue to not meet the requirements, you have selected "delusional". Until you can exclude all other possibilities, you CANNOT know. To continue to claim you do know, is the very definition of delusional. You should seek some actual qualified mental health professionals, or have someone explain why you MUST exclude the other possibilities.
You cannot even exclude ONE other possibility and yet you continue to claim you know...you CANNOT, and you have proven you DO not. You claim it to yourself, but have never PROVED it to yourself, so are actually lying to yourself.
I only took a couple years of psych and I know that much.
Tell me, where are you prcaticing so I can insure my children or anyone I know ever sees you "professionally".
.
lmao..ohhhh..yuogot a few years f "education" of psych under your belt.....that makes you more knowledgeable than me who has a degree in it and work in the field...go ahead....keep your children away from me if you wish.....you are delusional about my work.....
BTW Im done posting to you..i don't converse with people who pretend they know my mind and they think the thoughts I think...so long
kermi: There you go again blatantly lying-how many time must you threaten not to respond to a person before you actually tell the truth and don't? Oh right, that will never happen because if it did it would mean you'd be speaking only to yourself...you've used that childish threat so often it is no longer believable. Stop pouting like a 5 year old, pull up your big boy panties and answer the questions honestly please.
Kermi – I could not help notice in your post of 4/27 at 3:44pm ct, that you call who ever you are addressing "retard". Is this a term that you use in your youth bible study group to describe anyone who calls you out on your nonsense?
they did not call me out..and I was irritated by their arrogance
jbh – "retard" is a technical term that just ALL of the leading professionals in psychology are using today.
Yes , and after some research I find the term is gaining ground among those in moral authority.
" I was irritated by their arrogance"
Says the one who claims to know god exists...talk about hypocrisy! You need anger management and to resign, and in turn stay away from children-you are clearly delusional and need a psychologist yourself.
Jon
Lots of settings appear in literature.
Not all of them are real places, right?
Jon – Your are right. No one has ever seen heaven because it does not exist. Although there was that one night I spent with the Richardson triplets.....
heaven is for real, read the bible?
of what authority is a book written, translated and edited by man?
In this interesting article, a Christian pastor tries to answer the question: Did young Colton actually see heaven? Check it out:
http://364daysofthanksgiving.com/heaven-real/
♰ ♰ ♰ Jesus Christ Is Lord ♰ ♰ ♰
Early on:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/04/21/heaven-is-scary-for-real/comment-page-3/#comment-2994992
AND THE INFAMOUS HEAVEN/ ANGELIC/ SATANIC CONS CONTINUE TO WREAK STUPIDITY UPON THE WORLD
Joe Smith had his Moroni and Satan/Perdition/Lucifer. (As does M. Romney)
"Latter-day Saints like M. Romney also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."
Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God and of course Satan and his demons.
Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around) and of course the jinn.
Jesus and his family had/has Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented. (As do BO and his family)(As do Biden and Ryan)
The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie/ugly/horn-blowing thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.
A good reference for anyone interested in Semitic and more particularly Jewish and Old Testament angelology and demonology is "Immortality And The Unseen World A Study In Old Testament Religion" by William Oscar Emil Oesterley (1866 – 1950), which was published in 1921 by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Oesterley was a Church of England theologian, and professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at King's College, London from 1926 prior to which he had been vicar of St Alban's Church, Bedford Park, Chiswick in London. He wrote extensively from Bible commentary and Christian doctrine to Judaism and ancient Israel.
Relevant chapters are:
3 The Demonology of the Semites
4 The Demonology of the Old Testament
5 The Angelology of the Old Testament
Oesterley also covers the development of ancient Jewish views on death and the afterlife over time.
Since "Immortality And The Unseen World A Study In Old Testament Religion" is long out of copyright, it can be read online or downloaded in a variety of electronic formats for free from the Internet Archive at archive.org/details/immortalityandth014313mbp or downloaded in MP3 audio format from Librivox at librivox.org/immortality-and-the-unseen-world-by-w-o-e-oesterley/ ; it can also be found in audio format at the Internet Archive site.
@noahsdadtopher,
“Please tell me how something that happened billions of years ago is testable, repeatable and demonstrable? That's the scientific method.”
Science can test for the evidence of an event or multiple events having happened in the past, e.g. CMBR, impact craters, fingerprints, geologic strata, etc.
“You also have zero evidence of a change in kinds.”
Evolution does not occur at the “kind” level, but within and between species.
“Then there's also the problem of how it would be genetically impossible.”
I’m not sure why you would consider evolution as genetically impossible, but there are docu.mented cases of genetic changes in nature and in labs,
meant for thread back on pg 7
Anxiety, Mass hysteria and Panic are all the result of not really trusting in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son. Panic has lead many through History to anarchy, brawls, stampedes and riots.
Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son and you WILL NOT Panic. Animals do Panic and go into spontaneous stampedes so do people. There are frequent stampedes all over the world, anarchy, brawls and riots involving people who DO NOT Trust God and Jesus Christ God's Only Son.
Is. 48:22 "There is no peace for the wicked," says the Lord.
Is. 57:21 "There is no peace," says my God, "for the wicked."
Religion is the leading cause of wars all throughout history. More people have died in the name of gawd than any other single cause. Religious belief is a mental disorder and poisons everything.
Yes indeed, many of died in religious conflicts but to set the facts correctly:
The Twenty (or so) Worst Things WE Have Done to Each Other:
M. White, http://necrometrics.com/warstatz.htm#u (required reading)
The Muslim Conquest of India
"The likely death toll is somewhere between 2 million and 80 million. The geometric mean of those two limits is 12.7 million. "
Rank …..Death Toll ..Cause …..Centuries……..(Religions/Groups involved)*
1. 63 million Second World War 20C (Christians et al and Communists/atheists vs. Christians et al, Nazi-Pagan and "Shintoists")
2. 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C (Communism)
3. 40 million Genghis Khan 13C (Shamanism or Tengriism)
4. 27 million British India (mostly famine) 19C (Anglican)
5. 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C (Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Chinese folk religion)
6. 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C ( Confucianism, Buddhism and Chinese folk religion vs. a form of Christianity)
7. 20 million Joseph Stalin 20C (Communism)
8. 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C (Islam)
9. 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
10. 16 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C (Christianity)
11. 15 million First World War 20C (Christians vs. Christians)
12. 15 million Conquest of the Americas 15C-19C (Christians vs. Pagans)
13. 13 million Muslim Conquest of India 11C-18C
14. 10 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
15. 10 million Xin Dynasty 1C
16. 9 million Russian Civil War 20C (Christians vs Communists)
17. 8 million Fall of Rome 5C (Pagans vs. Christians)
18. 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C (Christians)
19. 7½ million Thirty Years War 17C (Christians vs Christians)
20. 7½ million Fall of the Yuan Dynasty 14C
*:" Is religion responsible for more violent deaths than any other cause?
A: No, of course not – unless you define religion so broadly as to be meaningless. Just take the four deadliest events of the 20th Century – Two World Wars, Red China and the Soviet Union – no religious motivation there, unless you consider every belief system to be a religion."
Q: So, what you're saying is that religion has never killed anyone.
A: Arrgh... You all-or-nothing people drive me crazy. There are many doc-umented examples where members of one religion try to exterminate the members of another religion. Causation is always complex, but if the only difference between two warring groups is religion, then that certainly sounds like a religious conflict to me. Is it the number one cause of mass homicide in human history? No. Of the 22 worst episodes of mass killing, maybe four were primarily religious. Is that a lot? Well, it's more than the number of wars fought over soccer, or s-ex (The Trojan and Sabine Wars don't even make the list.), but less than the number fought over land, money, glory or prestige.
In my Index, I list 41 religious conflicts compared with 27 oppressions under "Communism", 24 under Colonialism, 2 under "Railroads" and 2 under "Scapegoats". Make of that what you will."
"Do Not Panic"?
Are you talking about Christianity here, or The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy?
His grasp of the English language is tenuous at best...and it's part of his trolling persona.
Heaven is a made up place. How can Hollywood get it wrong?
How do you know heaven does not exist?
How do we know that Atlantis, Xanadu, or Arthur's Island of Avalon don't actually exist?
They all could exist, but the time to actually believe that they do is after evidence is found, not before. Humans, after all, do have a talent for inventing places like this in their storytelling.
Kudlak
Atlantis likely did exist, and was built on the remains of an ancient volcano, considering the described location and described city of rings, those rings were likely the rim of a volcano, most of the volcano submerged in the Med, and when it erupted suddenly, took out what was Atlantis.This has not been 100% confirmed, as there really is nothing left, but studies of volcaonoes, and the known volcanic activity the area is known for, and identifying volcanic epuptions from that area around the time Atlantis disappeared, they did actually place Atlantis in the Medeterranian Sea.
igaftr
Maybe, but I doubt that the Atlantians actually had ultra-advanced technology, Stargates, or Aquaman as their king.
kudalk
No , that much is true, but they did consider it a magical place ( imagine two rings of islands, one inside the other, otherwise surrounded by water...likely they could not conceive that this is a natural formation for volcanoes), and was a center of culture and art. From the descriptions of sailors and other travelers, it was likely something to see...until the volcano exploded again.
igaftr
And I hear that Hollywood is nice too ... until the wildfires hit.
How do you know that (INSERT AFTERLIFE) doesn't exist?
Heaven, Hell, Hades, Sheol, The Celestial Kingdom, The Elysian Fields, Valhalla, Limbo, Purgatory, Aaru, Asphodel Meadows, Bulu, Duat, Diyu, Irkalla, Murimuria, Neorxnawang, Niflhel, Patcha, Yomi, Tzoah Rotachat, The Summerland, Silicon Heaven, hamistagan, Burotu, Hedu ka Misi etc. ad nauseum
So many afterlives – and not a single iota of evidence for any one of them.
If God performed miracles witnessed by many that could not be confused with natural phenomena and, these miracles were recorded first hand, and God left a perfect bible that could not be interpreted multiple ways, then it would be reasonable to expect people to believe for thousands of years.
The actual situation is different though. Many of the miracle stories were Nth hand hearsay that susp'iciously resemble stories from other religions and cultures. The bible is va.gue, ambiguous, and poetic in many key places.
No reasonable person, never mind a God, should expect someone to believe on that basis. I don't think a God would. If God wanted our worship and love, he would have taken responsibility for the state of affairs and made a dramatic conclusive appearance worldwide. Then there would be no more (much fewer) atheists.
My conclusion is, if there is a God/Creator, then it isn't interested in a relationship with individual humans.
Of course everyone knows you'll never get to heaven, as Harold Lane David explained, if you break my heart.
Of course it's best to have the correct interpretation. I'd probably go with one Marie Dionne Warwick.
The problem with your reading is that it presumes everyone knows the right answer once they are told. The story itself explains that Adam did not know the difference between good and evil, on what basis was he then to obey God's instructions?
Also, with Job God bet Satan that Job wouldn't loose faith. How was it Job was supposed to know?
Your interpretation does not address the question of the liability of God. You dodge the question. Then you say, you get it or you don't. Your interpretation is common, but I hope that as Christians we can move past this simple interpretation and embrace the deeper fact that all of us, Christian or no, always act in a context of great ignorance. We often have to discover our ignorance after the fact with only a partial sense of our responsibility. But once we have acted in naivete it is too late and we often have to live with the consequences regardless. This is the "fact" of our existence which this story is addressing. Even if we believe that the Universe doesn't make mistakes (that it is a place that follows laws and contains order (although we now perceive the nature of Chaos or complexity)) we experience our lives as if we were compelled to suffer at the hands of "mistakes" we made in ignorance. In other words, we are inherently not omniscient nor can we possibly conceive of life from an omniscient point of view.
I assume you have read the Bible observing that Adam blamed God for making Eve in the first place and Job's friends blamed God as well. To Adam God did not reply but simply allowed them to live out their lives under the deception of good and evil. To Job God did not reply to his friends who blamed God but did spare their lives at Job's request and also lived out their lives under the deception of good and evil. The commonality with Adam and Job's friends is that they were looking for an answer to blame not the answer based on love and redemption which is the plan of creation. Those opposed to God will not or can not hear Gods reply even if God were to give one.
This was a reply to believerfred
And the last paragraph was fred's...*face palm for myself*
"Those opposed to God will not or can not hear Gods reply even if God were to give one."
Another example of fred's cult logic.
folks like fred cannot tell the difference between an answer of "no" and no answer
What baffles me about belief in god is the absolute contradiction between a jealous and violent god and a god of love and forgiveness. In the same paragraph you say that god was going to murder all Job's friends because they blamed god for all the terrible things that happened to Job (for which they were right) and then you criticize them for not seeing gods true nature of love and redemption. Do you not see the absolute dichotomy here? Mass murder because some people called god out on his actions and then criticizing the potential victims for causing the situation because they did not understand that god is love? In human terms this is called an abusive relationship. Someone call family services for an intervention and rescue.
it baffles you cause you don tknow what God is...jealous god means he has a zeal to protect what beliongs to him...that is not a negative thing..I am jealous for my wife in keeping her safe..is that a bad thing? you need to get a dictionary and look at the word jealousy..and look at the context when the word jealous is used in the Bible..for example "just as a hen guards her chicks..." THAT is a jealousy there....as for vicious....I guess you don't like God to Judge things huh? God is judge.....He cannot change it...he is NOT judging cause he FEELS like it..it is His very nature....that's exactly what the Bible has said....you are confused cause you don tknow it well....
Once again I make several points and you respond to only one. I will assume that you have no defense on the others. I am never jealous of my wife as I have no reason to be so. Gods jealousness of humans is based on an insecurity that we might be playing with other gods? Doesn't sound like an omnipotent deity to me. Sounds like an insecure girlfriend.
youre not jealous for your wife? so you are not caring to protect her then? Gods jealousy does nOT stem from insecurity..again that's ONE definition of jealousy that You are using which is nOT what the bIble is saying...as I said..go get a dictionary..or if you need me to, I can tell you the defintions (plural) of jealousy.....if one has a zealous guarding of another for their safety..thats not insecurity...thru CARING and loving the person..it is a good thing...God cares about us and wants the best for us..he knows that messing with other gods will draw us away from him..and we end up eternal life in hell.....
btw as far as I seen..i been addressing all of your points..if I am missing them..tell me then..don't just say I am not addressing them.TELL me which ones are not addressed..thanks
Are you seriously proposing that jealousy is the motivating emotion required to keep your loved ones safe? If your answer is yes, then you are a sick puppy and probably have a secret room in your basement for those who cause you to be jealous. Jealousy is a black emotion attributed to those who do not have their head screwed on straight. If a deity is omnipotent what possible situation would cause him/her/it to be jealous other than a serious psychosis. Think about it. You have absolute control over everything and everyone. No one can make the slightest move without it being part of your plan. You control absolutely every aspect of the universe. And you are jealous? What could you possibly be jealous of? You control it all! This is yet another absolute debunk of of the nonsense you spew. I can t wait to hear what you "really" mean by jealousy and that it really means something else in the bible and that I really don't understand because I don't speak ancient aramaic. Kermit – save some face and don't respond. We are all laughing at you even in advance of your ridiculous response.
You spent about 140 words in response to my post above totally focused on the word "jealously". Let's try this. Please remove the word "jealously" from my post. Read it again. Jealously is not really pivotal to the point I am trying to make. This is actually a teachable moment if you allow it to be. My point is that the concept of an insecure omnipotent god is ludicrous. Please do not fall back on the fact that I do not speak multiple languages or that I took scripture out of context. Both arguments are becoming trite and either way do not apply to this post.
however..the God of the Bible is not insecure..since you use a negative definition of jealousy that is not within the context
Kermit. Would you read the flipping post. I said take out the word "Jealous". It is not germane to the point.
You simpleton. My post said to REMOVE THE WORD JEALOUSLY if it is a challenge for you. The point stands without it. Your response was regarding the use of "jealously' again.
the word jealousy is NOT a problem for me..it is a problem with YOU cause YOU for some reason have narrowed it down to mean ONE thing..thus showing your ignorance of the use of the word...
Kermi – You are the one who objected to the definition of jealously evident in my post. You had the issue. In response I am saying (for the 6th time) use any definition the voices in your head tell you to. It is not germane to the question being asked.
ok..we BOTH have obkerctions...however....you have to show that God is jealous in a negative way..not positive...as for taking their lives when they worship other gods/idols..their lives are already gone.....they chose to reject life that God gives.....God is merely giving them what they have chosen...
"the God of the Bible is not insecure"
Oh my kermi, you really do need to go back to school and truly get an education. The god of the bible is very insecure or it wouldn't need violence to resolve its temper tantrums.
gosh, kermy, you know what god is better than other people?
go home and get your shinebox, boy
OMG and is that bad? A lot of people know God as I do.....what is so wrong about that? Are you threated by the fact some people know more than you? I know MY wife better than You know her.....does THAT bother you?
Kermi – this is the point you did not respond to. Take out the word jealous if you need to. It is not pivotal to the point:
What baffles me about belief in god is the absolute contradiction between a jealous and violent god and a god of love and forgiveness. In the same paragraph you say that god was going to murder all Job's friends because they blamed god for all the terrible things that happened to Job (for which they were right) and then you criticize them for not seeing gods true nature of love and redemption. Do you not see the absolute dichotomy here? Mass murder because some people called god out on his actions and then criticizing the potential victims for causing the situation because they did not understand that god is love? In human terms this is called an abusive relationship. Someone call family services for an intervention and rescue.
WHY take out jealous? I don't get it..You brought it up..as for ME what I say?> I Never say God was going to murder..don't put words in my mouth...as for your description...its not Biblical and based o0ut of ignorance..you don tknow what you are talking of..
Take out jealous, leave in jealous, define it in whatever creative way you want. Just answer the question. How do you reconcile a violent and murderous god with a god of love and forgiveness. And don't dare say that god is not violent and murderous. It is a constant theme throughout scripture. Siting just one instance – I point out the flood of Noah. He indiscriminately killed everyone. Men, women, women giving birth, newborns and children of all ages.
sir..I been using a DICTIONAY and I gave you a link..appanrelty you want to remain willfully uignorant of definitions of jealousy..and I have ALREADy addressed this God of forgivness and love..YOU left out justice as well..you left out a God who is JUST....YOU left out a God who is HOLY...etc etc...that all ties in
Assuming you read my other posts you know that I have already addressed the dictionary definition of jealousy and I have completely acquiesced to your preferred definition.
Regarding my original question you have still have not provided an answer. You went off on a tangent regarding all the attributes you give to your god; being just, being holy, snappy dresser, great dancer, etc.
My question was, and still remains, how can you reconcile a violent and murderous god for which there is much scriptural evidence, as also being a god of love and forgiveness? When god killed every man, woman and child on earth in the flood of Noah where is the demonstration of his love? Where is the demonstration of his forgiveness?
you don't seem to be able to connect the dotsl..YO Uonly had two....YOU left out some important info...and that's how I reconciled it....I assumed yo uwere capable of connecting the dots.....God is not ONLY a god of love and forgivness..he is ALSO a HOLY God (sin can NOT coexist within His presence) God is ALSO a JUST God (he is Judge over all..he cannot forgo his very nature-thus judgement HAS to take place)
You just can't answer the question can you? How can you reconcile a violent and murderous god with a god of love and forgiveness. I will give you that he is just. I will give you that he is holy. I will accept any other attributes you want to pile on. Answer the question or admit you can't.
IM sorry you cannot accept my answer..i DID answer it....you just don't have a clue how to connect the dots..i tried to make it simple...you told me a few posts ago IM dishonest and have no objectivity....seems you are the one here with that as you still don't seem to get it.....you cant accept that a loving God is also a JUST God and he JUDGES..and there are consequences.....
Gods love shows in the children killed by the Fllod in they receive the gift of heaven......we ALL die...whther child adult or elderly..man or woman..ALL of us will die a physical death....God judged the men and women who were evil..he LOVINGLY gave them a couple hundred years (read the account) to repent as Noah built the ark...they were warned..and they ignored the warning and made their choice..god gave them what they asked for
Kermi – You are saying that god killed all the children in Noah's flood because he loved them? God killed everyone in the flood because they "asked for it? You just described the justification process for every religious person who ever strapped on a vest or ended the life of a family planning doctor. After all the posts over the last several days you finally nailed it. You have demonstrated why your belief system is depraved and dangerous. You also finally answered the question I posed which was "how can your god be murderous and violent and also be a god of love and forgiveness"? Your answer is that he professes love while at the same time slaughtering children. Luckily he does not really exist so there is no danger there, but you do exist and you believe this tripe. You teaching a bible class these bloody lessons is no different than radical teachings at a madrasa.
You are a bad person with murderous ideas. I chose not to correspond with you any longer. I feel unclean just writing this to you.
NOT at all....your feeble attempt to relate this to strapping bombs and all does NOT negate about my belief in God...those are people who abuse the religion..not everyone is like that..I wouldn't do that....Ill bet you are saying all Muslims are bad now too..cause the actions of a few (9/11) after allthius would be how your argument would lead to...yes..a justification process for those who ABUSE....thatis no reason to take religion out......so as for the living God...ok...so eternal life for the child is a bad thing to you huh? I mean come on.....you only see one side of it......a loving God takies the children out of the evil society as part of the plan and gives them eternal life......a society that molested them and threw thenm in the fire, etc....
IMnot a bad person at all....IM sorry you feel that way....but you pretty much twisted things (God is murderous.....murder is defined as UNLAWFUL taking of life) I teach that God takes and is judge of ALL life....Im sorry you feel that is wrong......I do NOT teach people to go out and murder or take lives of others......you are making a dishonest blanket statement and lumping everyone together in such a way...
Kermi – Ok, let's close on the "jealousy" issue. Predictably, when confronted with a dichotomy in your dogma (my post of 4/26 @ 3:20pm ct) you avoid the question and got wrapped around the definition of the word "jealously. In FOUR follow-on posts (this being the FIFTH) I said forget about the word "jealously". Take it out and answer the question. Still waiting.
So let's see if I can pose another question that should play right into your wheelhouse. Be forewarned I am going to use the the word "jealously" so don't spin off on a tangent. We are going to assume that you have inside knowledge to the intentions of the Old Testament authors. For the purpose of this question we will ascribe to your preferred definition of "zeal to protect what beliongs to him" or per the Oxford Dictionary "Fiercely protective or vigilant of one’s rights or possessions". In your posts you mentioned several times that jealously as you define it was to ensure an individual(s) safety. At your insistence I referenced five dictionaries and your "safety" clause does not hold water.
On to my question. Let's assume for just a minute that there is an Omnipotent and Omniscient deity that has absolute control over everything and everyone. No one can make the slightest move without it being part of his plan. He controls absolutely every aspect of the universe. He knows (or determined in advance) every action that everyone and everything will take until the end of time. But per scripture he is a jealous god. Using your definition of jealous which is "zeal to protect what beliongs to him" how can this be? How can anyone or anything take something from this deity without it being part of his own plan? Which if true, could not invoke jealousy as the event was intentionally caused by the deity himself. Is there another deity that is a bully who has taken our deities lunch money?
In short, if you are an Omnipotent and Omniscient deity how can you be jealous (even using your definition) without appearing insecure and possibly phobic?
" A lot of people know God as I do"
Oh my kermi, how very dishonest! You don't know god, you only believe you do and there is a HUGE difference between knowledge and belief. Maybe you would not get called a liar if you merely stated you believe, instead of playing the arrogant card and claiming knowledge. The beliefs of those who claim this god, still do not add up to a verifiable god, at least not any more than those who claim unicorns or witches exist.
kermit4jc
"Gods love shows in the children killed by the Fllod in they receive the gift of heaven......"
Please quote the verse in the Bible where God says that all the children he horribly killed were automatically sent to heaven.
thereis not one single verse...its all about understanding the literature....sin is a conscious decision one makes to do wrong....there is akso the understanding of what death is...etc etc..childen do not have that capablitiy.....thus the age of accountability..what is that age? depends on the individual child
" the age of accountability..what is that age? depends on the individual child"
You are so full of shit kermi!! IF you are a psychologist, you would know what the age of accountability is in this world. Your god is a vindictive monster and for you to support it killing anything is immoral and says that YOU should not be allowed anywhere near children or other humans. Plea resign from your position and let the stable non-delusional help the innocent children..you are obviously too mentally ill yourself and in dire need of help to be doing so.
TruthPrevails1 – I made a decision not to reply to kermi any longer. He is the worst kind of human being purporting gods love as he slaughters children. We are likely to see him on TV one day after he doles out gods justice and guns down a family planning doctor. I have conversed with many people of faith on many issues but he is the most disingenuous. It takes a while. but once he is cornered on an obvious flaw in his belief he resorts to the most shallow defenses. So far he has said that we just don't understand the truth because we 1) don't speak multiple languages 2.) don't think like a Jew. 3) don't look at verse in context when it makes no difference (a day is a day and night is a night regardless of context) 4.) don't understand how greek is translated from Hebrew. 5.) don't understand the literature. 6.) can't connect the dots. 7.) don't understand the Greek/hebrew languages 8.) don't understand that the bible wasn't written in America. 9) etc. By the way, I don't know where it came from but in several posts he is mentioned as being a psychologist. There is no possible way we are talking about an educated man. Maybe he empties the trash in a psychologist's office but he is no psychologist. In one of his name calling rants he called someone a "retard" and his marital advice to me was parochial and pedestrian. But with all that aside, just his murder of the english language is reason enough to believe that he writes with crayons, not pens. Some of his posts I just gave up trying to comprehend. Examining his garbled and unintelligible posts however I think gives great insight to his thought processes.
Anyway, I am going to make a suggestion we all stop giving this nutter a platform and stop responding to him.
I totally agree with you. As for the psychologist reference, he has made the claim that he is one and when asked where he practises he has used the threat of slander to avoid giving these details. I have a further issue that he claims LGBT is not natural and when confronted with what he would say to a parent who had concerns that their child might be LGBT, he has stated that would never be asked of him due to that not being part of his area of expertise (apparently he only deals with behavioral issues)...when further confronted with the possibility of the question being posed to him, he avoids answering it. On this matter I'm willing to guess he would suggest reparative therapy which has been debunked. I believe he might have taken a course in psychology but nothing more. He is a bigot, a woman hater, delusional at best and I would agree a risk to the general public-someone who needs supervision in the safety of an asylum.
He doesn't care what the facts are if they don't meld with his bible. The fact that he is living a delusion doesn't seem to matter to him, he seems content and yet very angry at the world. He's not someone I would take a child to for help nor is he someone I would associate with outside of this blog. He needs serious help.
kermit4jc
"God is murderous.....murder is defined as UNLAWFUL taking of life"
How about state-sanctioned genocide? Hitler certainly didn't consider his "final solution" as unlawful. So, that would make it OK according to your definition. Might makes right, I suppose?
Notice in the video it's all, I or My philosophy, in other words it's all about me me me... No matter which one of these high minded men are speaking. Don't compare God or God's will to the high minded flawed ideas of men.