[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Are you saying that god made us fallible[/quote]
Seems pretty obvious that is this in fact the case.
I’m not saying we cannot understand, but that we very well may, have and could in the future have issues with interpretation, communication and in any way dealing with a message passed to us from an omnipotent being.
In fact, I’m saying, we likely can’t even truly understand omnipotence.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
Ok. Maybe I’m missing something.
Slave owner owns slaves his whole life and treats people in hideous fashion, but near the end of his life finds god and accepts JC as his personal savior. Saved: True or False.[/quote]
Luke 23:32-43 says TRUE.
John 14:6 says TRUE.
Romans 3:23, furthermore, says your second premise is false.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Are you saying that god made us fallible[/quote]
Seems pretty obvious that is this in fact the case.
I’m not saying we cannot understand, but that we very well may, have and could in the future have issues with interpretation, communication and in any way dealing with a message passed to us from an omnipotent being.
In fact, I’m saying, we likely can’t even truly understand omnipotence.
[/quote]
OK I understand what you’re saying. So what do you think happens to those who misinterpret the texts? Whether it be on purpose or by lack of understanding.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And if you read my post those that cause the suffering and even those that allow it can loose in the end.[/quote]
Isn’t winning and losing defined solely by whether–before the mortal end–the person accepts JC as their personal savior? It seems to me that this is the only earthly action that actually matters in the long run, if we look at the book from the perspective that it is true. [/quote]
Then we’ve read different books. To believe is to obey, to obey is to act. It is a false dichotomy that belief alone gets you in because belief without action is impossible.
Edit: for examply: People who profess belief in gravity don’t casually walk off cliffs not expecting to fall.[/quote]
Ok. Maybe I’m missing something.
Slave owner owns slaves his whole life and treats people in hideous fashion, but near the end of his life finds god and accepts JC as his personal savior. Saved: True or False.
Slave is a slave his whole life and never accepts JC. In all other respects he conducts himself consistent with the commands of the Bible in the way he treats other men. Not saved: True or False.
[/quote]
I think the Bible indicates we all have enough written on our hearts and our ability and knowledge affect our culpability. But ultimately the hearts of others is only known by god. And without the omniscient knowledge of the totality of a person from raw material through death with an absolute understanding of justice, we cannot and are told not to judge others.
Another interesting thought is, does personal improvement and effort matter or is absolute good/bad-ness the only thing that counts. If there is a slave owner who is a mean, cantankerous, abusive, rapist and all around evil guy, but through Christian intervention becomes far more tolerant and good willed toward his slaves, while having to overcome through tremendous will power, the attitude and incredible temptations of the times, can he get in? What about the guy raised in comfort, with a good disposition, in a time a place where following the flow means doing more good with less effort?
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Which is why I said “suggests to me”: because I have really fantastic reason to assume exactly that, or rather a set of reasons which I’ve articulated many times hereabouts.
But even without that sentence, the point must stand: god is concerned with the mistreaters and the mistreated, and yet, on the subject of slavery, he doesn’t think it important to do much more than set some ground rules. So, an ominbenevolent being has no problem with slavery. Surely we shouldn’t either.[/quote]
You did not condemn slavery in this post. I will assume you have no problem with it.
Or maybe book asserted to be the guide for your soul through the hereafter is concerned with… the hereafter.
…
Holy Christ. I go to workout and come back in about an hour and a half. Within that time span you folks fill up 3 whole pages.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Which is why I said “suggests to me”: because I have really fantastic reason to assume exactly that, or rather a set of reasons which I’ve articulated many times hereabouts.
But even without that sentence, the point must stand: god is concerned with the mistreaters and the mistreated, and yet, on the subject of slavery, he doesn’t think it important to do much more than set some ground rules. So, an ominbenevolent being has no problem with slavery. Surely we shouldn’t either.[/quote]
You did not condemn slavery in this post. I will assume you have no problem with it.
[/quote]
I have condemned slavery in this thread, which would be the proper analogy. And I would certainly condemn it if I were laying down a bunch of do’s and don’t’s, and slavery came up as a topic of conversation. Odd that god didn’t.
[quote]
Or maybe book asserted to be the guide for your soul through the hereafter is concerned with… the hereafter. [/quote]
Which would be a decent argument if the book weren’t absolutely filled with worldly concerns about clothing, food, treatment of others, testimony in legal proceedings, grabbing at the testicles men who are fighting with your husband etc.
Again: “Don’t kill, don’t fuck your neighbor’s wife, and make sure your slave gets a day off.” Only one conclusion to be drawn from that.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I know. It’s sort of a bitch on my end too.
I’m really new to this whole being able to come to terms with believing thing. It’s been a life long struggle really. [/quote]
No shame in that: it’s a lifelong struggle on my end, too.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Which is why I said “suggests to me”: because I have really fantastic reason to assume exactly that, or rather a set of reasons which I’ve articulated many times hereabouts.
But even without that sentence, the point must stand: god is concerned with the mistreaters and the mistreated, and yet, on the subject of slavery, he doesn’t think it important to do much more than set some ground rules. So, an ominbenevolent being has no problem with slavery. Surely we shouldn’t either.[/quote]
You did not condemn slavery in this post. I will assume you have no problem with it.
[/quote]
I have condemned slavery in this thread, which would be the proper analogy. And I would certainly condemn it if I were laying down a bunch of do’s and don’t’s, and slavery came up as a topic of conversation. Odd that god didn’t.
[quote]
Or maybe book asserted to be the guide for your soul through the hereafter is concerned with… the hereafter. [/quote]
Which would be a decent argument if the book weren’t absolutely filled with worldly concerns about clothing, food, treatment of others, testimony in legal proceedings, grabbing at the testicles men who are fighting with your husband etc.
Again: “Don’t kill, don’t fuck your neighbor’s wife, and make sure your slave gets a day off.” Only one conclusion to be drawn from that.[/quote]
Except that there are plenty of parts of the Bible that condemn slavery. For crying out loud, even your example here has a line right next to it that says “lover your neighbor as yourself” which effectively outlaws slavery.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I know. It’s sort of a bitch on my end too.
I’m really new to this whole being able to come to terms with believing thing. It’s been a life long struggle really. [/quote]
No shame in that: it’s a lifelong struggle on my end, too.
[/quote]
If it isn’t a struggle, you haven’t thought about it.
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Are you saying that god made us fallible[/quote]
Seems pretty obvious that is this in fact the case.
I’m not saying we cannot understand, but that we very well may, have and could in the future have issues with interpretation, communication and in any way dealing with a message passed to us from an omnipotent being.
In fact, I’m saying, we likely can’t even truly understand omnipotence.
[/quote]
OK I understand what you’re saying. So what do you think happens to those who misinterpret the texts? Whether it be on purpose or by lack of understanding.[/quote]
What I believe is going to be different than what people aligned with a particular religion believe, for sure, at least in a micro sense, but here goes:
I fully believe intent is the key to all this shit. I don’t think an omnipotent being is concerned with rituals, holy texts, lip service or any superficial shit. You can say you love jesus, wear the cross on your neck, but if you don’t truly believe, it doesn’t count. You have to truly believe and have the intent behind your actions for it to matter. And you don’t need the rituals and all that to truly believe.
I also don’t think it matters what name you call God or what or how you pray to said god, or even if you pray. What matters is that you have faith. Shit I’m not convinced you have to even accept that you have faith yet, even though it would seem silly if that was the case, and here is why:
Intent is what matters. If someone like Angry Chicken is a good person, does good and moral things, and lives his life in a way that does the hard thing of being a good person, honestly regrets and LEARNS FROM his transgressions, even if he rejects God’s existence, he still lived by “the code” for lack of a better term. Even though his intent wasn’t because of God in his mind and heart, his mind and heart was still in line with God.
To reject God is to actively think about and evaluate the God concept just the same. Does omnipotence strike you as something that will “punish your soul” (again lack of better phrasing) for struggling with the God concept? I don’t think so. It seems counter productive.
Whether or not you shout your faith from the rooftops or claim you have none, evil is evil, and people trying to be good are trying to be good. Your actions and what you truly hold in your heart (admitted or rejected) are equally important.
While I think life is “random”, I do think there is a purpose. And I fully believe that purpose sort of sucks for some sometimes, others often and a rare few never. We look to “good” in life like it is the goal. I don’t know that life was meant ot be good, or easy or fun or in any way anything other than what it is, hard.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The slavery of the parent devolves on the child: “Well, yeah! What else would an omnibenevolent being want?”
With regard to this:
God would not be depriving Child A of anything. His parents would have made a poor choice. You must also remember that Hebrew(and I assume, by extension and later, Christian) slaves were to be released either during the year of Jubilee or their seventh year of servitude(whichever came first).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]hmm87 wrote:
Are you saying that god made us fallible[/quote]
Seems pretty obvious that is this in fact the case.
I’m not saying we cannot understand, but that we very well may, have and could in the future have issues with interpretation, communication and in any way dealing with a message passed to us from an omnipotent being.
In fact, I’m saying, we likely can’t even truly understand omnipotence.
[/quote]
OK I understand what you’re saying. So what do you think happens to those who misinterpret the texts? Whether it be on purpose or by lack of understanding.[/quote]
What I believe is going to be different than what people aligned with a particular religion believe, for sure, at least in a micro sense, but here goes:
I fully believe intent is the key to all this shit. I don’t think an omnipotent being is concerned with rituals, holy texts, lip service or any superficial shit. You can say you love jesus, wear the cross on your neck, but if you don’t truly believe, it doesn’t count. You have to truly believe and have the intent behind your actions for it to matter. And you don’t need the rituals and all that to truly believe.
I also don’t think it matters what name you call God or what or how you pray to said god, or even if you pray. What matters is that you have faith. Shit I’m not convinced you have to even accept that you have faith yet, even though it would seem silly if that was the case, and here is why:
Intent is what matters. If someone like Angry Chicken is a good person, does good and moral things, and lives his life in a way that does the hard thing of being a good person, honestly regrets and LEARNS FROM his transgressions, even if he rejects God’s existence, he still lived by “the code” for lack of a better term. Even though his intent wasn’t because of God in his mind and heart, his mind and heart was still in line with God.
To reject God is to actively think about and evaluate the God concept just the same. Does omnipotence strike you as something that will “punish your soul” (again lack of better phrasing) for struggling with the God concept? I don’t think so. It seems counter productive.
Whether or not you shout your faith from the rooftops or claim you have none, evil is evil, and people trying to be good are trying to be good. Your actions and what you truly hold in your heart (admitted or rejected) are equally important.
While I think life is “random”, I do think there is a purpose. And I fully believe that purpose sort of sucks for some sometimes, others often and a rare few never. We look to “good” in life like it is the goal. I don’t know that life was meant ot be good, or easy or fun or in any way anything other than what it is, hard. [/quote]
This can be a dangerous path. Ritual and tradition can be good. I think they are a tool though and as such can definitely matter. Even if all it amounts to is obedience. Obedience for it’s own sake isn’t always a bad thing.
I also think focusing on intent can lead to some bad stuff. Like if all I have to do is want good I’ll just pray for God’s will to always be done and nothing else. That way I do not have to think about the right and wrong of actual actions and pray for those. I think god likes to be asked. Or if giving to charity is intent of good so you just give to any charity, when a little research could have made the donation more helpful to those in need. I think god wants our best practical execution along with our best intent.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Except that there are plenty of parts of the Bible that condemn slavery. For crying out loud, even your example here has a line right next to it that says “lover your neighbor as yourself” which effectively outlaws slavery.[/quote]
Again, it appears that this injunction, at least pre-Jesus, only applied to other Hebrews. The whole verse is “'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
God permitted the Hebrews to seek vengeance and bear grudges against other tribes (commanded it, even: Deuteronomy 25:17-19), just as he permitted the Hebrews to buy and own them, and their children, as inheritable chattel, in perpetuity.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Except that there are plenty of parts of the Bible that condemn slavery. For crying out loud, even your example here has a line right next to it that says “lover your neighbor as yourself” which effectively outlaws slavery.[/quote]
Again, it appears that this injunction, at least pre-Jesus, only applied to other Hebrews. The whole verse is “'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
God permitted the Hebrews to seek vengeance and bear grudges against other tribes (commanded it, even: Deuteronomy 25:17-19), just as he permitted the Hebrews to buy and own them, and their children, as inheritable chattel, in perpetuity.
[/quote]
Who did Jesus say our “neighbor” was?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Except that there are plenty of parts of the Bible that condemn slavery. For crying out loud, even your example here has a line right next to it that says “lover your neighbor as yourself” which effectively outlaws slavery.[/quote]
Again, it appears that this injunction, at least pre-Jesus, only applied to other Hebrews. The whole verse is “'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
God permitted the Hebrews to seek vengeance and bear grudges against other tribes (commanded it, even: Deuteronomy 25:17-19), just as he permitted the Hebrews to buy and own them, and their children, as inheritable chattel, in perpetuity.
[/quote]
Who did Jesus say our “neighbor” was?[/quote]
Whoever acts neighborly… even Samaritans.
Which is why my post says “at least pre-Jesus”.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Except that there are plenty of parts of the Bible that condemn slavery. For crying out loud, even your example here has a line right next to it that says “lover your neighbor as yourself” which effectively outlaws slavery.[/quote]
Again, it appears that this injunction, at least pre-Jesus, only applied to other Hebrews. The whole verse is “'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
God permitted the Hebrews to seek vengeance and bear grudges against other tribes (commanded it, even: Deuteronomy 25:17-19), just as he permitted the Hebrews to buy and own them, and their children, as inheritable chattel, in perpetuity.
[/quote]
Who did Jesus say our “neighbor” was?[/quote]
Whoever acts neighborly… even Samaritans.
Which is why my post says “at least pre-Jesus”.[/quote]
But Jesus was teaching about the old commandments, not coming up with new ones.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Except that there are plenty of parts of the Bible that condemn slavery. For crying out loud, even your example here has a line right next to it that says “lover your neighbor as yourself” which effectively outlaws slavery.[/quote]
Again, it appears that this injunction, at least pre-Jesus, only applied to other Hebrews. The whole verse is “'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.”
God permitted the Hebrews to seek vengeance and bear grudges against other tribes (commanded it, even: Deuteronomy 25:17-19), just as he permitted the Hebrews to buy and own them, and their children, as inheritable chattel, in perpetuity.
[/quote]
Who did Jesus say our “neighbor” was?[/quote]
Whoever acts neighborly… even Samaritans.
Which is why my post says “at least pre-Jesus”.[/quote]
But Jesus was teaching about the old commandments, not coming up with new ones.[/quote]
Jesus was re-interpreting a set of old commandments that had been written for an ebullient, warlike, conquering tribe, so that they would be relevant to the lives of an impoverished, broken-spirited people living under foreign military occupation.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Jesus was re-interpreting a set of old commandments that had been written for an ebullient, warlike, conquering tribe, so that they would be relevant to the lives of an impoverished, broken-spirited people living under foreign military occupation.
[/quote]
That is one possible interpretation.
Ever read the book Zealot? I think you’d like it.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
God would not be depriving Child A of anything. His parents would have made a poor choice. You must also remember that Hebrew(and I assume, by extension and later, Christian) slaves were to be released either during the year of Jubilee or their seventh year of servitude(whichever came first).[/quote]
His parents would have made a poor choice by, for example, getting captured in a foreign land and then being sold to a landed Hebrew? Yeah, terrible choice. (Aside: that Solomon Northrup sure made some bad choices. Oh well, he got what he deserved for it.)
Furthermore: god would absolutely be depriving child A of something. Because:
Child A is part of a society which keeps him as a slave – lifelong, if he’s not among the nation of the chosen – by virtue of nothing he has done.
God wrote, or inspired the writing of, a book with a bunch of rules, regulations, prescriptions, and proscriptions for the people of Child A’s society.
God explicitly addressed the institution of slavery (of which Child A is a part) in that book.
God still didn’t do anything – or tell anyone to do anything, or have anyone act as his mouthpiece and tell his peers to do anything – to change Child A’s circumstances. He didn’t tell anybody it was wrong, he didn’t tell anybody it was sinful – [u]in contradistinction with, for example, explicit prescriptions relating to such morally urgent concerns as the grabbing of a man’s nutsack by a woman with whose husband the first man is fighting.[/u]