Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Absolute Power of Christianity!

page: 9
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Shonet:
you are indeed a scholar and I greatly appreciate your posts.


Thanks. For a while there, I thought no one saw me!!!


as most of us have figured out, arguing anything with facts with Jake1997 is merely casting pearls before swine - he will ignore any facts that don't jive with his version of Christianity. You will soon find you've been placed on his "ignore list" if it isn't already full. That is all the proof you need to know that there is a God and he/she is just and merciful.


I'm sure I'll end up on the list. And so be it. His version of Christianity is skewed. And sadly, he doesn't see that. I was a raised a fundie and I know the harm in it. The best definition I have seen that depicts what they remind me of is the mom in the Waterboy. Everything is the devil.




posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   

The exception to this 'rule' of history is that, there were not any actual christians involved in the acts of evil. Its an oxymoron.


Who were involved in the Crusades? The Inquisition?



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   

The 10 Commandments are a message of peace and love? How deluded can you possibly be. They are a list of items for which the death penalty was imposed.


Not all were death, so you could not be put to death for 8, 9, and 10!


Where's the peace and love in stoning people to death for failing to rest on the sabbath?


There are several reasons for the importance of the Sabbath and not that I personally would stone anyone to death for not following it, Jews back then were different so to speak. But remembering the Sabbath was remembering G-d and his creation and copying what he did, which was to rest. Not all types of work were forbidden on the Sabbath and it was a day where the servants were the equals of the masters. Deuteronomy reminds the reason also for giving slaves the day off as they were slaves in Egypt.


Besides, which 10 Commandments do you propose? There's more than one.


Yes there are and few seem to remember this.


Why do those who propose plastering the world with Exodus 20, not also promote Exodus 21, which is a continuation of the commands god supposedly gave directly to Moses.


Exodus 21 should be plastered! Those are civil and criminal laws. But the second set of commandments are found in Deuteronomy 5.


Perhaps it's because Exodus 21 is filled with wonderful words of peace and love such as this:


These are somewhat about peace, love I'm not so sure about. Justice is a prominent feature in Judaism.


Exodus 21
2If you buy a Hebrew slave, he must remain your slave for six years. But in the seventh year you must set him free, without cost to him. 3If he was single at the time you bought him, he alone must be set free. But if he was married at the time, both he and his wife must be given their freedom. 4If you give him a wife, and they have children, only the man himself must be set free; his wife and children remain the property of his owner.


And all slaves go free in the jubilee years no matter how long they have served.


20Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves. 21However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property.


This is a law to protect the slave from extreme corporeal punishment.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430
Not all were death, so you could not be put to death for 8, 9, and 10!


I assume you're referring to theft, false witness and coveting? Ok, but that still doesn't make them a message of love and peace.


Originally posted by Shonet1430
There are several reasons for the importance of the Sabbath ...


The claim I responded to was the claim that the 10 Commandments (whichever version) are a message of love and peace. Whether it's a good idea to rest at least one day a week or not does not make the death penalty for failure to do so a message of love and peace.


Originally posted by Shonet1430
These are somewhat about peace, love I'm not so sure about. Justice is a prominent feature in Judaism.


I doubt you'll find many slaves that will agree they are being treated justly, or with love.


Originally posted by Shonet1430
And all slaves go free in the jubilee years no matter how long they have served.


No, not all. Only male Hebrew slaves. Non-hebrews were permanent property, as were female slaves (who were also concubines, not merely housekeepers).


Originally posted by Shonet1430

20Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves. 21However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating, you are not to be punished. After all, you have already lost the services of that slave who was your property.


This is a law to protect the slave from extreme corporeal punishment.


It also shows that slavery was directly condoned by the Hebrew god, in the next breath after the 10 Commandments, and that harsh treatment of slaves was generally acceptable, and that slaves were considered property.

Can we agree that slavery is abhorent? If so, why should anyone honor the alleged commands of the same person who not only permitted, but actually encouraged slavery, by codifying rules of acceptable slave ownership?

The 10 commandments are a soft peddling of the full message, which is a message of subservience to earthly masters.

Of the 10 Commandments (whichever 10 you pick), only three have been codified into western laws; theft, murder, and false witness. The typical claim (I'm not saying you've made this claim) that they are the basis of our law is silly and dishonest in light of that obvious fact.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

I assume you're referring to theft, false witness and coveting? Ok, but that still doesn't make them a message of love and peace.


Yes I was referring to them and no, none of them are a message of peace and love. They are rules.


I doubt you'll find many slaves that will agree they are being treated justly, or with love.


True, but not all of Chapter 22 is about slaves. It's civil and criminal law in general, just for the record.


No, not all. Only male Hebrew slaves. Non-hebrews were permanent property, as were female slaves (who were also concubines, not merely housekeepers).


Leviticus 25.10
and you shall hallow the fiftieth year. You shall proclaim the release throughout the land for all its inhabitants. It shall be jubilee for you: each of you shall return to his holding and each of you shall return to his family.

Leviticus 25.40-41
He shall remain with you as a hired or bound laborer, he shall serve with you only until the jubilee year. Then he and his children with him shall be free of your authority; he shall go back to his family and return to his ancestral holding.

The Canaanite is the only one to be kept in slavery forever.

Leviticus 25.46
you may keep them to inherit as property for all time. Such you may treat as slaves. But as for your Israelite kinsman, no one shall rule ruthlessly over the other.


It also shows that slavery was directly condoned by the Hebrew god, in the next breath after the 10 Commandments, and that harsh treatment of slaves was generally acceptable, and that slaves were considered property.


Yes slavery was condoned. But the purpose of chapter 22 in reference to slaves was to keep them from being treated poorly.


Can we agree that slavery is abhorent?


Absolutely but I wouldn't mind to have someone do my laundry. Any takers?


If so, why should anyone honor the alleged commands of the same person who not only permitted, but actually encouraged slavery, by codifying rules of acceptable slave ownership?


I don't have slaves! And I follow the laws. The slave laws do not pertain to me as I don't have any.


The 10 commandments are a soft peddling of the full message, which is a message of subservience to earthly masters.


I suppose it could be seen this way. I don't feel subservient.


Of the 10 Commandments (whichever 10 you pick), only three have been codified into western laws; theft, murder, and false witness. The typical claim (I'm not saying you've made this claim) that they are the basis of our law is silly and dishonest in light of that obvious fact.


Understandable but our government also condoned it as well (assuming you live in the US).



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Look at your logic. The king of Babylon was in heaven? The king of Tyre had pipes coming out of his body. They fell from heaven?


Look who's talking about logic. Somewhere did a great job telling you exactly what your Bible says. You seem to need another lesson.

Ezekiel 28.2
Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus KJV
"Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre, RSV
"O mortal, say to the prince of Tyre" JPS

Looks like it's the prince of Tyre.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now does he have pipes coming out of his body? Only the KJV uses that term. And I must be missing something. Does Jesus have pipes coming out of him?

Ezekial 28.13
Thou hast been in Eden the garden of G-d; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created KJV

You were in Eden, the garden of G-d; every precious stone was your covering, carnelian, topaz, and jasper, chrysolite, beryl, and onyx, sapphire, carbuncle, and emerald; and wrought in gold were your settings and your engravings. On the day that you were created they were prepared. RSV

You were in Eden, the garden of G-d; Every precious stone was your adornment: Carnelian, chrysolite, and amethyst; Beryl, lapis lazuli, and jasper; Sapphire, turquoise, and emerald; And gold beautifully wrought for you, Mined for you, prepared the day you were created." JPS

So what does it seem these "pipes" are? Eh?

Isaiah 14:4
That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon KJV
you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: RSV
you shall recite this song of scorn over the king of Babylon JPS

Isaiah 14:12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! KJV
"How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! RSV
How are you fallen from heaven, O Shining One, son of Dawn! How are you felled to earth, O vanquisher of nations! JPS

Did you notice that the name Lucifer was missing from the Hebrew AND the RSV?

Verse 15

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. KJV
But you are brought down to Sheol, to the depths of the Pit. RSV
Instead, you are brought down to Sheol, To the bottom of the Pit. JPS

Notice that there is no hell is the Hebrew or RSV either?

Why do you deny what that which you worship says?



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Ive already explained it to you.
I feel no need to say it over and over again.
If you desire not the truth, you will not have it



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Ive already explained it to you.
I feel no need to say it over and over again.
If you desire not the truth, you will not have it


You have explained nothing and show nothing more than personal blindness. Those religious blinders must be on your head really tight. Start with shedding King James and you'll see the truth.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 02:44 PM
link   
the New International Version is a much better translation of original Hebrew and Greek texts by over 200 scholars.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
and the wheel (or argument) goes around and around and around...


Whenever someone gives a "non-answer" like: "it's in the bible" or "you should read your bible and you'd understand" then, those of us who have bothered to learn the history of how any given version (especially any printed in English) came into being, well....which version?

I truly think that all modern, Elnglish-language, translations of the bible have several things in common:
1) the men (were there ever any women?) working on it were honest and sincere and felt that they were doing the work of God

2) English is not an easy translation from Greek, Hebrew, or Arameic and, as is true with all languages, the meanings and contexts of some individual words will change slightly over time so, in fact, no such thing as an exact verbatim translation is likely to be possible.
(Even if it were, who is to say that the original manuscripts were not altered by either politics or carelessness when they were copied?)

3) the Old Testament (or Tanakah) did not need any re-writing though it probably has "suffered" somewhat out of proportion by being incorporated into the Christian version of the bible.

4) Somehow, some way, a "majority opinion" of the meaning or translation will find its way into the text. Were those in the minority not also lead by their faith in God? Was God not speaking to (or through) that one person who may be saying "you've got that word wrong, there!"

So, no answer that consists entirely of a single passage of the bible can suffice for many people - including me. The bible has to be taken as a whole and I think very little of it was meant to be taken as literally as some now do. But, then history rears it's head again. I join with many others in rejecting completely any parts of the NT written or edited more than a generation after the generally agreed upon year of the death of Jesus.

In other words, for me, Paul is a goner!


[edit on 31-5-2005 by Al Davison]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430
True, but not all of Chapter 22 is about slaves. It's civil and criminal law in general, just for the record.


The point isn't whether the whole chapter is about slavery (BTW I was referring to ch.21), the point is that the Hewbrew god condoned it, within the same breath as the 10 commandments.



Leviticus 25.10
and you shall hallow the fiftieth year. You shall proclaim the release throughout the land for all its inhabitants. It shall be jubilee for you: each of you shall return to his holding and each of you shall return to his family.

Leviticus 25.40-41
He shall remain with you as a hired or bound laborer, he shall serve with you only until the jubilee year. Then he and his children with him shall be free of your authority; he shall go back to his family and return to his ancestral holding.

The Canaanite is the only one to be kept in slavery forever.


...and female slaves Hebrew or not. BTW, "Canaanite" refers to non-Hebrew slaves in general from surrounding nations. I don't see how that's any different from what I said previously.


Originally posted by Shonet1430
Yes slavery was condoned. But the purpose of chapter 22 in reference to slaves was to keep them from being treated poorly.


Again, ch. 21, not 22. Regardless, the thrust is not to keep them from being treated poorly, it's only to keep them from being immediately killed. As long as they didn't die immediately, they could be treated as harshly as the master wanted. What other possible interpretation is there from this:

Ex 21:20-21
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and [the slave] dies under his hand, [the death] must be avenged.
However, if [the slave] survives for a day or two, then, since he is [his master's] property, [his death] shall not be avenged.


Originally posted by Shonet1430
I don't have slaves! And I follow the laws. The slave laws do not pertain to me as I don't have any.


That's a dodge. Anyone who claims that a supreme being promotes slavery is unworthy of being taken seriously - even if they were named Moses and wrote that claim down thousands of years ago.


Originally posted by Shonet1430
Understandable but our government also condoned it as well (assuming you live in the US).


Isn't that how this discussion started?



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shonet1430

The exception to this 'rule' of history is that, there were not any actual christians involved in the acts of evil. Its an oxymoron.


Who were involved in the Crusades? The Inquisition?



Not people who were keeping Christs word. That I can tell you. The crusades were just as 'anti-jew' as they were 'anti-islam'.
Acts like the crusades were examples of why there was a reformation.
The inquisition is another.

Jesus Christ is Jewish. People who keepthe word of Christ are christian. Not people who merely say they are doing it.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Want to talk about a conspiracy? Here's one...a guy who has never met the "man" starts to preach about him and tell everyone what "the man" thinks because he (the guy) has been blown off his horse and rendered blind and accordingly has been appointed. In the meantime, the guy proclaims that he has gotten a firm handle on the "faith" because of his encounters with the "man". Finally, the "CHURCH" exists. The Church is overthrown by its own members who feel it's perverted.

If this sounds like a rekindling of U.S. history (history of the Roman empire, history of the Egyptian empire, etc.) there is a reason. It's the same old drama being played out again.

Learn from history. We've done this time and time again. Once a theory or dogma has been espoused. People make a point of debunking it.

One last thought...just because a dogma has withstood the "TEST OF TIME" does not mean it's right.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   

The point isn't whether the whole chapter is about slavery (BTW I was referring to ch.21), the point is that the Hewbrew god condoned it, within the same breath as the 10 commandments.


Yes you were referring to 21. I was writing when my DSL decided to die so I couldn't reference and then didn't bother to check it. Anyhow, times were seriously different than they are today. So what if he condoned slavery? He made slaves out of his people.


...and female slaves Hebrew or not.


Chapter and verse please.


BTW, "Canaanite" refers to non-Hebrew slaves in general from surrounding nations. I don't see how that's any different from what I said previously.


Not always. See below.

Gen 12.6 Abram passed through the land as far as the site of Shechem, at the terebinth of Moreh. The Canaanites were in the land.

In verse 5, he was going to Canaan. So are you saying that he was going to slave land and the slaves were out and about? The Canaanites controlled the land when Moses died. I didn't know slaves could have control of land.

Genesis 13.7 And there was quarreling between the herdsmen of Abram's cattle and those of Lot's cattle.--The Canaanites and Perizzites were dwelling in the land.

Genesis 153.21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girga#es, and the Jebusites.

Exodus 3.8 I have come down to resuce them from the Egyptians and to bring them out of that land to a good and spacious land, a land flowing with milk and honey, the region of the Canannites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.

Now shown in the three verses above, if they were nothing more than slaves, why are they listed with other Palestinian tribes?

Joshua 5.1 When all the kings of the Amorites on the western side of the Jordan, and all the kings of the Canaanites near the sea, heard how the Lord had dried up the waters in the Jordan for the sake of the Israelites until they crossed over, they lost heart, and no spirit was left in them because of the Israelites.

So the slaves have king slaves?

If you need more references, Joshua 11.3, Numbers 13.29, Isaiah 23.2, Zephaniah 2.5, Isaiah 23.8, Ezekiel 26.29, Ezekiel 27.4, Zephaniah 1.11,


Again, ch. 21, not 22.


Yes again, I was wrong.


Regardless, the thrust is not to keep them from being treated poorly, it's only to keep them from being immediately killed. As long as they didn't die immediately, they could be treated as harshly as the master wanted.


Actually like I said before, it was to keep them from extreme corporal punishment. Another thing is there is a difference between the servant and the slave which I meant to mention earlier. The six years requirement is for those sold by the court. Females cannot be sold for theft by the court.


What other possible interpretation is there from this:

Ex 21:20-21
If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and [the slave] dies under his hand, [the death] must be avenged.
However, if [the slave] survives for a day or two, then, since he is [his master's] property, [his death] shall not be avenged.


20-When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod, and he dies there and then*, he must be avenged.

*Then=under his hand

21-But if he survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged since he is the other's property*.

*Since he is the other's property=That is,the slave is the master's property. This means either that the master was within his rights to punish the slave corporally, or that (in addition to the slave's lingering death) his investment in the slave makes it unlikely that he would have intentionally killed him.

Let's recap. Verse 20 is more like murder and verse 21 is more like accidental.



That's a dodge. Anyone who claims that a supreme being promotes slavery is unworthy of being taken seriously - even if they were named Moses and wrote that claim down thousands of years ago.


It's no dodge. Do you think that all of the laws handed to the Jews are for every single Jew? If so, then you're wrong. As I don't have slaves, those laws do not pertain to me. And actually, those laws also apply to the employees of Jews as well. Again, those were different times. Less than 200 years ago, our government allowed it too. Did they promote it? I don't know. G-d doesn't command slavery. He gave commands for those slaves though. He commanded Jews to marry. He commanded them to not eat pork. Big difference IMO.


Isn't that how this discussion started?


It's all run together by now.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Mr. Davidson,

Thank you for your insight. There is definitely more than one way to skin a cat. (Sorry to all you wiccans out there). The problem of translation is always with us. As my father likes to quote "Moses tied his ass to a tree and walked 40 miles." = an excruciating pain out of context. See my what's wrong with Islam post for another example.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
As was stated earlier/above the translations of the original text to English are not perfect. The term slavery is not the same as we know it today.

Does the Bible condone slavery?


Answer: The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deu 15:12-15; Eph 6:9; Col 4:1), but does not outlaw the practice altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many people don’t understand is that slavery in the Bible times is completely different from the slavery that was practiced in the United States in the 1700’s and 1800’s. The slavery in the Bible was not based on race at all. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was more of a social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their family. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, even politicians were slaves of someone else for one reason or another. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their master.
(added bold text, Rren)

I hope this helps




posted on May, 31 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   

the New International Version is a much better translation of original Hebrew and Greek texts by over 200 scholars.


My Gran refuses to give up her KJV. She's just one of those...She knows it makes me crazy too because I have bought her different versions.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Whenever someone gives a "non-answer" like: "it's in the bible" or "you should read your bible and you'd understand" then, those of us who have bothered to learn the history of how any given version (especially any printed in English) came into being, well....which version?


I know that certain churches use a specific version. But among the BACs there doesn't seem to be a uniform one. Some people stick with good ol' King James while some go with the Living and so on. I wonder how many of those actually know that there is a difference. Maybe they think that a bible is a bible is a bible.


I truly think that all modern, Elnglish-language, translations of the bible have several things in common:
1) the men (were there ever any women?) working on it were honest and sincere and felt that they were doing the work of God


I agree with this. And we have come a long way as a whole with knowledge and I believe that these people made due with the best they could.


2) English is not an easy translation from Greek, Hebrew, or Arameic and, as is true with all languages, the meanings and contexts of some individual words will change slightly over time so, in fact, no such thing as an exact verbatim translation is likely to be possible.
(Even if it were, who is to say that the original manuscripts were not altered by either politics or carelessness when they were copied?)


Very true considering the ancient languages lacked grammar and that alone can make a huge difference.


3) the Old Testament (or Tanakah) did not need any re-writing though it probably has "suffered" somewhat out of proportion by being incorporated into the Christian version of the bible.


Part of that suffering was rearranging the books. Why would anyone think to do such a thing? I really would like to know that.


4) Somehow, some way, a "majority opinion" of the meaning or translation will find its way into the text. Were those in the minority not also lead by their faith in God? Was God not speaking to (or through) that one person who may be saying "you've got that word wrong, there!"


I think the people who go for the literal are the scary ones! They are nothing more than worship the Bible. The majority opinion IMO is what makes it. People who choose to read it, study it, live by it, etc should read it and make sense of it for themselves as the minority!


So, no answer that consists entirely of a single passage of the bible can suffice for many people - including me. The bible has to be taken as a whole and I think very little of it was meant to be taken as literally as some now do. But, then history rears it's head again. I join with many others in rejecting completely any parts of the NT written or edited more than a generation after the generally agreed upon year of the death of Jesus.


Rejecting the NT as a whole was a difficult thing for me to do when I began my journey into Judaism. Each day as I listened to my heart and tuned out the people around me, I realized that Judaism is where I belonged. I told my gran. She told me, "Whatever helps you back to Jesus." I explained it very nicely to her and she let it go. I initially worried about my grandma being an apostate Jew and then found that G-d wasn't some little child or the playground bully. He would know the heart of my grandma and the hearts of others no matter what their path was taking them down. I was taught that basically everyone other than the Southern Baptists were wrong. I was taught that everyone should be safe rather than sorry. I then learned that the only religion that is wrong is the one that claims to be the only one. To think that G-d is so small is beyond me. G-d didn't invent religion. Man did as a way of connecting with G-d. G-d certainly isn't going to limit himself to one group, not even the Jews. There are so many good and moral people out there not even associated with a religion. It's the people who shove religion down their throats and not act in ways that they should that drive people away. When I learned that G-d is loving and just, all of my worries were gone and everything was beautiful. I'm now living life to live and not living to die so I can receive my glory. And let me tell you....it's not easy doing that down in the Bible Belt! These kids that I did carpool with told my kids that because they were Jewish, they were going to hell. Nicely taught anti-semitism at the ripe age of 6. Another little girl told mine that we worship the devil since we're Jewish...a reference to the horns of light on Moses.


In other words, for me, Paul is a goner!


Smart move!!!



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Not people who were keeping Christs word. That I can tell you. The crusades were just as 'anti-jew' as they were 'anti-islam'.
Acts like the crusades were examples of why there was a reformation.
The inquisition is another.


Were you assuming that because I'm Jewish that I didn't know that they were Muslims involved too?


Jesus Christ is Jewish.


Was....if he lived.


People who keepthe word of Christ are christian. Not people who merely say they are doing it.


Now that's cleared up.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zen_Doh
Mr. Davidson,

Thank you for your insight. There is definitely more than one way to skin a cat. (Sorry to all you wiccans out there). The problem of translation is always with us. As my father likes to quote "Moses tied his ass to a tree and walked 40 miles." = an excruciating pain out of context. See my what's wrong with Islam post for another example.


Which verse to you attribute this too ??

Peace Out





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join