Anonymous wrote:we think of slavery as the odious and indefensible North Atlantic slave trade, but Abraham had slaves. I mean what was Hagar but a slave? I can't be bothered to look them up right now, but there are numerous passages in the Bible that condone the practice of slavery.
We think of slavery as odious and indefensible because it is. Slavery deprives a human being of free will and self determination. It treats people as property and deprives people of their humanity. Even slavers understand that slavery is dehumanizing because slavers almost never choose to enslave groups with whom they self identify -- throughout history, slavery has been practice imposed on racial and ethnic minorities deemed as less evolved and more animalistic than the ruling majority, in order to justify treating them in this way.
The fact that the Bible frequently condones slavery (or is like "well just treat your slaves nicely, please") is a good reason to be skeptical about strict, originalist interpretations of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Which has all kinds of crazy practices, including human sacrifice, polygamy, and other things we now reject.
The whole point of the New Testament was to break the covenant of the Old Testament. This pastor is not only a fascist but also completely uneducated about his own faith. Meanwhile there are approximately zero Jewish scholars or theologians who would say the Torah somehow blesses 19th century chattel slavery.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Sorry Charlie, his word trumps yours.
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun. Not sure what you think you are saying - do you follow all of Deuteronmy and keep kosher at your church?
Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic.
As for your second sentence, if you can pick and choose which parts to follow and which to ignore then what is the point of any of it?
You just proved PPs point. Do you follow all of the laws of the OT? If not, you are very much picking and choosing to follow only the ones that suit you.
I don't follow ANY of it, because it is all bronze age BS.
You just proved MY POINT, actually.
You don't follow it but you deem yourself a scholar of the Bible
What point is that?
Yes, thanks, that is another point of mine you are making. That I don’t believe the Bible but I do know it better than you. That’s a big part of the reason I do not believe and do not follow - because I know the sh*t it actually says. You should try it.
Sure, sure. It's nice that you think so. But can you show some proof, please? Like what point were you making?
Uhhhhhh… maybe there is a language problem here? My points are pretty clearly lined out in each of my short posts. Starting with an actual bible quote.
You posted one Bible quote as some kind of "got you." You never actually explained your position. You're a frequent poster here and can't put an actual paragraph together. All you have are these quick insults, but when pressed, you can't actually articulate a single position.
I haven’t insulted anyone, unlike you.
What is unclear about any of my posts, specifically? Quote it, please.
"Lol... now you are re-defining words to mean the opposite of what they CLEARLY SAY. Pathetic."
Explain, in your scholarly way, what you mean by that.
PP claims that the word “fulfill” means change, when the sentence clearly says the opposite.
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." - Jesus H. Christ
Matthew 5:17
Response from him:
“fulfill” is understood to mean that the old covenant is over and the new one is begun
If you say you are here to fulfill the law and not destroy it, how does that mean change? Wouldn’t change require destruction of the old law? Was Jesus that poor a communicator that he could not say it better?
Here are some other translations which should remove any doubt:
New International Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
New Living Translation
“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.
English Standard Version
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Berean Standard Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them.
Berean Literal Bible
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.
That’s just some of them, here is a longer list from a Christian bible site:
Are you referring to yourself in third person? Very strange.
I get that you can find and copy/paste various translations of the same verse you posted already. I was looking for your scholarly interpretation of that verse which you still did not provide. So I’m still very much in the dark as to what you meant as I was before.
First: What the hell are you talking about “in the third person”?
Second, generally when someone has evidence that they could provide they provide it, instead of saying that they could. I also said the sentence was self-evident, requiring no scholarly analysis, as every translation says pretty much the same thing, which was the reason to post them. If you are “in the dark” about what I meant, then you are likely the only one.
But you’re not.
As suspected, you have no actual knowledge of the Bible and can’t form a paragraph explaining your interpretation of the verse you posted. Any fool can copy/paste passages. Easiest thing in the world. To have a deep, contextual understanding is something entirely different.
As I stated, it’s one, simple passage which requires no explanation or interpretation. You’ve yet to say why it requires one other than that is the only way to rationalize it to fit your narrative.
And you are correct, any fool can quote the Bible, and many often do.
NP. I am not invested in this argument because only a total lunatic would argue that the Bible’s tolerance of slavery means that slavery is ok.
However, “I have come to fulfill the law” is not a simple passage at all. It has extremely deep implications and is most likely talking about Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy that he is the messiah, not a broader reading of the Old Testament versus the New Testament. The New Testament did not exist while Jesus was speaking. There could not have been a concept of comparing passages.
In context, Jesus very clearly broke Old Testament “law” several times, such as when he healed on the Sabbath or his disciples peeled wheat to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus clearly abhorred the strict legalism that could lead someone to decide slavery is ok because the Bible did not condemn it, or that women should not vote because of one verse by Paul. Jesus was operating above the individual politics of his time, because the evils of that age were not the same as the evils of our age and he knew that.
Hegseth’s pastor does not appear to be following Jesus, as far as I can tell. Jesus himself predicted this, that there would be many operating in his name and even doing miracles in his name but who would be aligned with the devil. Reading the New Testament is about developing discretion for this.
The bible does much more than "tolerate" slavery. It provides guidelines for who you can enslave, what are the terms for it, which ones you can rape as concubines, how you can beat your slaves without punishment (as long as they don't die witin a vouple of days) and more. It also provides commands for slaves themselves to obey their masters.
"These passages are all pretty straightforward. One could even say that the Bible is clear on this: the institution of slavery is permitted by God, endorsed by God, and owning slaves can even be a sign of God’s blessing. This has in fact been the Christian view through history: it’s only in the last 150-200 years that the tide of Christian opinion has shifted on slavery."
"Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." is what was said, and not "the old laws are wrong, don't own people as property, ever, under any circumstances" was NOT said.
Why not?
This raises a broader argument. If Jesus was against certain things, why did he not clearly say so? For all the pithy allegory attributed to him, could he not have said a few new "commandments" like, thou shalt not own another human being?
Instead, we're left with interpreting and reading between the lines of words written by multiple authors, across centuries of thinking - all of which hadn't yet come up with the concept that slavery was wrong.
Well, why do YOU think this is, pp? This has been addressed from everyone from Saint Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to all of the 10 year olds in my son’s religious Ed class last week.
If most public school fifth graders who attend church could think of a reasonable answer to this question, then I’m sure that you can, pp.
I'm curious what REASONABLE argument your 10 year would make?
[quote=Anonymous][quote]Oh please a book written years ago by men for one purpose to control people is a book for indoctrination into a cult.
[/quote]
Couldn’t you say the same about the US constitution? Or almost any book about theology or philosophy?
Are you allergic to copy/paste? Which biblical verses are you so upset about?[/quote]
THe US constitution allows for amendments. The Bible, written much longer ago, does not. The Catholic Church does allow for changes in the rules. I hear they got rid of Limbo. Where are all the unbaptized babies now?
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]Oh please a book written years ago by men for one purpose to control people is a book for indoctrination into a cult.
[/quote]
Couldn’t you say the same about the US constitution? Or almost any book about theology or philosophy?
Are you allergic to copy/paste? Which biblical verses are you so upset about?[/quote]
THe US constitution allows for amendments. The Bible, written much longer ago, does not. The Catholic Church does allow for changes in the rules. I hear they got rid of Limbo. Where are all the unbaptized babies now?[/quote]
No Christian church on planet Earth follows the Bible word for word, no matter what they claim. These debates were already being held in Biblical times, as documented in the Bible, when men who became Christians did not want to be circumcised as adults. That’s why this entire thread is kind of stupid.
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]Oh please a book written years ago by men for one purpose to control people is a book for indoctrination into a cult.
[/quote]
Couldn’t you say the same about the US constitution? Or almost any book about theology or philosophy?
Are you allergic to copy/paste? Which biblical verses are you so upset about?[/quote]
THe US constitution allows for amendments. The Bible, written much longer ago, does not. The Catholic Church does allow for changes in the rules. I hear they got rid of Limbo. Where are all the unbaptized babies now?[/quote]
No Christian church on planet Earth follows the Bible word for word, no matter what they claim. These debates were already being held in Biblical times, as documented in the Bible, when men who became Christians did not want to be circumcised as adults. That’s why this entire thread is kind of stupid.[/quote]
Yes it is stupid. As is denying people basic human rights based on a book of bronze age myths.
Yes it is stupid. As is denying people basic human rights based on a book of bronze age myths.
I have a question. What are you trying to accomplish by calling the Bible "a book of bronze age myths?" Do you find that language persuasive?
There are plenty of people who agree with you, but decline to be disrespectful of other people's belief systems in a serious discussion.
Just some food for thought.
One, its a fact. Two, if a judge or politician said they truly believed leprechauns were real, would you be respectful of their veneration of the book called "Gold at the End of the Rainbow". If not, then there's your answer.
Yes it is stupid. As is denying people basic human rights based on a book of bronze age myths.
I have a question. What are you trying to accomplish by calling the Bible "a book of bronze age myths?" Do you find that language persuasive?
There are plenty of people who agree with you, but decline to be disrespectful of other people's belief systems in a serious discussion.
Just some food for thought.
One, its a fact. Two, if a judge or politician said they truly believed leprechauns were real, would you be respectful of their veneration of the book called "Gold at the End of the Rainbow". If not, then there's your answer.
Yes it is stupid. As is denying people basic human rights based on a book of bronze age myths.
I have a question. What are you trying to accomplish by calling the Bible "a book of bronze age myths?" Do you find that language persuasive?
There are plenty of people who agree with you, but decline to be disrespectful of other people's belief systems in a serious discussion.
Just some food for thought.
One, its a fact. Two, if a judge or politician said they truly believed leprechauns were real, would you be respectful of their veneration of the book called "Gold at the End of the Rainbow". If not, then there's your answer.
Just some food for thought.
Thank you very much for making it clear that engaging with you is a waste of valuable time!
Yes it is stupid. As is denying people basic human rights based on a book of bronze age myths.
I have a question. What are you trying to accomplish by calling the Bible "a book of bronze age myths?" Do you find that language persuasive?
There are plenty of people who agree with you, but decline to be disrespectful of other people's belief systems in a serious discussion.
Just some food for thought.
One, its a fact. Two, if a judge or politician said they truly believed leprechauns were real, would you be respectful of their veneration of the book called "Gold at the End of the Rainbow". If not, then there's your answer.
Just some food for thought.
Thank you very much for making it clear that engaging with you is a waste of valuable time!
Typical. Running away from a discussion because you don't have an answer.
[quote=Anonymous][quote]
Yes it is stupid. As is denying people basic human rights based on a book of bronze age myths.[/quote]
I have a question. What are you trying to accomplish by calling the Bible "a book of bronze age myths?" Do you find that language persuasive?
There are plenty of people who agree with you, but decline to be disrespectful of other people's belief systems in a serious discussion.
Just some food for thought.
[/quote]
Not that poster Bible thumpers think they can spew and magically everyone should believe like them. That’s BS keep your indoctrinated cult shit away from the rest of us. Women in particular who follow the so called Bible are fools. What the hell are you doing submitting to a man for a book written by men.
Yes it is stupid. As is denying people basic human rights based on a book of bronze age myths.
I have a question. What are you trying to accomplish by calling the Bible "a book of bronze age myths?" Do you find that language persuasive?
There are plenty of people who agree with you, but decline to be disrespectful of other people's belief systems in a serious discussion.
Just some food for thought.
One, its a fact. Two, if a judge or politician said they truly believed leprechauns were real, would you be respectful of their veneration of the book called "Gold at the End of the Rainbow". If not, then there's your answer.
Just some food for thought.
Thank you very much for making it clear that engaging with you is a waste of valuable time!
Pp may be sarcastic, but they are accurate, as well. Too bad you refuse to engage with them.
Yes it is stupid. As is denying people basic human rights based on a book of bronze age myths.
I have a question. What are you trying to accomplish by calling the Bible "a book of bronze age myths?" Do you find that language persuasive?
There are plenty of people who agree with you, but decline to be disrespectful of other people's belief systems in a serious discussion.
Just some food for thought.
One, its a fact. Two, if a judge or politician said they truly believed leprechauns were real, would you be respectful of their veneration of the book called "Gold at the End of the Rainbow". If not, then there's your answer.
Just some food for thought.
Thank you very much for making it clear that engaging with you is a waste of valuable time!
Typical. Running away from a discussion because you don't have an answer.
More likely, she thought about her answer and didnt like it.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
