Burning Holy Books

[spook]

Why should The Bible condemn a practice that had no spiritually adverse effect on those who were master or those who were servant? In fact the references that you called up are from the various Paulian epistles, and are the letters that Paul who was Saul sent expressing his views of how they should behave following the receipt of The Good News.

 

They do not form a part of the Teaching of Christ per se.

[Chinahand]

Lao - you need the next few verses to really make it clear - Link.

 

Leviticus 25:44-46 (New International Version)

 

44 " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

 

Now Spook - lets have a yes or no answer - if you follow the bible is it allowed or not for you to take someone as your property, for you to own them for their entire life, and for you to be able to pass the ownership you have of these people on as your inherited property.

 

You can call that a bondsman if you like - any reasonable person would see that it is slavery - Spook, is it moral to treat a person as property?

[Chinahand]

Why should The Bible condemn a practice that had no spiritually adverse effect on those who were master or those who were servant? In fact the references that you called up are from the various Paulian epistles, and are the letters that Paul who was Saul sent expressing his views of how they should behave following the receipt of The Good News.

 

They do not form a part of the Teaching of Christ per se.

Amazing - you do understand the concept of free will don't you - do you really think holding someone in slavery has no influence on their free will.

 

And I just love the idea that the Epsisles of Paul aren't a part of the Teaching of Christ - question - are the biblical letters a part of the gospel or not? And hence inspired by God - with all the authority that imbues them with?

[Chinahand]

LDV - the idea of Hell (or Gehenna) was not new to Jesus. In any case, it did not refer to a physical Hell (which was really an invention of the Church in later years for frightening people into obedience) but to a mental Hell within a person which would result from their behaving badly i.e. Jesus was pointing out what he saw as a psychological fact.

 

I do not think you can call Jesus a fraudster - he honestly believed in what he taught and that the eventual Kingdom would involve all those who heard his words and obeyed the will of God. It is highly debatable that he thought of himself as Divine - that idea seems to later have been one in the minds of his disciples and followers.

Evil Goblin I really think this is you giving your interpretation of what Hell is and not Christ's. Jesus's rhetoric is profoundly millenial and supernatural. It is all about judgement after death.

 

Are you really going to say the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is about psychology - why then are both Lazarus and the rich man dead?

 

Link

 

The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.

[Lao]

Why should The Bible condemn a practice that had no spiritually adverse effect on those who were master or those who were servant? In fact the references that you called up are from the various Paulian epistles, and are the letters that Paul who was Saul sent expressing his views of how they should behave following the receipt of The Good News.

 

They do not form a part of the Teaching of Christ per se.

 

And here is where you prove my point. You had to concede that the bible sees nothing wrong in slavery.

 

you say that to live by the bible would make a person moral, but then when the point is hammered home that the bible is ok with slavery, you say you are ok with slavery, as it has no spiritually adverse effect.

 

For evil and immoral deeds to exist in our society, all it takes is for people to let them happen, and in your case all it takes is for your religious beliefs to give you a reason to turn a blind eye.

 

(thanks for the extra details Chinahand)

 

Now take for example the sexual laws/rules laid out in leviticus 20:10-21

 

laws regarding who you cannot have sex with, yet no mention of an age limit, dont sleep with your sister, dont sleep with your aunt nor your brothers wife etc etc, why not condense these to no sex with any relative, and spare some room for an age limit.

 

In biblical times young marriages were common, most would be considered statutory rape by todays standards, and some would have beeen considered paedophilia and yet nowhere does the bible condemn sex with a child, nor give any age limit beyond which a person can be consider an adult.

 

Again the bible has a failure by omission when it comes to a moral issue.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV - the idea of Hell (or Gehenna) was not new to Jesus. In any case, it did not refer to a physical Hell (which was really an invention of the Church in later years for frightening people into obedience) but to a mental Hell within a person which would result from their behaving badly i.e. Jesus was pointing out what he saw as a psychological fact.

 

I do not think you can call Jesus a fraudster - he honestly believed in what he taught and that the eventual Kingdom would involve all those who heard his words and obeyed the will of God. It is highly debatable that he thought of himself as Divine - that idea seems to later have been one in the minds of his disciples and followers.

I know of Gehenna, but this (as you mention) was different to the hell that people describe today.

Was it not something the hell as something different from the psychological sense not something that only arose in the years following Jesus' death. I mean not too long after his death?

 

Then he would be a madman. Hearing God and believing himself to know what God wishes. It's one or the other.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Not just the people from The Levant, people who have converted into judaism, in fact jews who have traveled the world and still the jew religious denomination remains in place.

But those who have converted are defined their conversion. It is not remarkable in the least that Jews remain Jews. They have continued their religious impact and have remained homogenised because of their religion, ethnicity, and shared culture.

 

Still their existence does not demonstrate a God's. As I said, very poor evidence. May I ask why you have not converted to Judaism?

 

So what? It is still true.

The Bible is true? Where is your evidence for its contents being true?

 

You have been given one.

You gave me one example from the Bible. To prove your connection between distance from God and success/failure you need to provide examples of this cause and effect taking place.

I have no reason to accept the contents of the Bible as all true.

 

Your analysis seems very silly to me. I mean, in Spain in the fifteenth century Jews were told to leave Spain or convert to Christianity. Some converter but most fled Spain. For all the hardship and persection the Jews kept the religion. But their reward? Having to flee to new lands. Doesn't really fit in with your idea.

 

That is your opinion.

Would you really treat others you love in the manner that God does? Would you put people you love in harms way to determine your love for them, if you had the power?

 

The worthwhile from the useless. A tare is a thing that in a filed looks like wheat but actually is useless.

I was asking you to stop using metaphors and just speak normally.

 

Its not for me to say. You still have the choice. Be a saint or be a sinner, gain the benefit from one, suffer for the second..

Of course it is for you to say, you're the Christian. Do you think it is right to have someone suffer for all eternity because they did not accept the God? You DO have an opinion. Either you do or you don't. Do I deserve it or not?

 

Can you stop referring to metal.

[spook]

Now Spook - lets have a yes or no answer - if you follow the bible is it allowed or not for you to take someone as your property, for you to own them for their entire life, and for you to be able to pass the ownership you have of these people on as your inherited property.

 

Yes. I have never said otherwise.

 

You can call that a bondsman if you like - any reasonable person would see that it is slavery - Spook, is it moral to treat a person as property?

 

Yes. If they are a bondsman.

 

But there is a but.

 

In the first place the version of the bible that you quote from is a highly politicised version that loses many nuances and many brazen facts that the KJV with all its weaknesses retains.

 

In particular the word “slave” has in recent years hugely changed in popular received wisdom.

 

Today the word conjures up the forced labour of native Africans, stolen from Africa, often by other native Africans from neighboring tribes and sold to usually Arab slavers, then illegally traded, and finally abused most terribly by the European owners.

 

That was not slavery in the meaning of bondsman (or even slave in the KJV). That was theft pure and simple and as so is absolutely prohibited in The Bible and I detest and deplore such things.

[Bananaman]

That was not slavery in the meaning of bondsman (or even slave in the KJV). That was theft pure and simple and as so is absolutely prohibited in The Bible and I detest and deplore such things.

 

 

So your form of slavery is ok then? Joseph being one.

[spook]

Still their existence (the jew) does not demonstrate a God's. As I said, very poor evidence. May I ask why you have not converted to Judaism?

Because I accept Jesus as my Messiah and saviour. Also because I accept the New Covenant and all it brings.

The Bible is true? Where is your evidence for its contents being true?

There is a great deal of historical fact that can now be confirmed archeologically. What’s more it is a work that was inspired by The Holy Spirit working within man.

You have been given one.

You gave me one example from the Bible. To prove your connection between distance from God and success/failure you need to provide examples of this cause and effect taking place.

I have no reason to accept the contents of the Bible as all true.

One is sufficient. Especially so in this case.

 

Your analysis seems very silly to me. I mean, in Spain in the fifteenth century Jews were told to leave Spain or convert to Christianity. Some converter but most fled Spain. For all the hardship and persection the Jews kept the religion. But their reward? Having to flee to new lands. Doesn't really fit in with your idea.

And yet they survived because The Lord was with them, or more to the point THEY were with The Lord.

Would you really treat others you love in the manner that God does? Would you put people you love in harms way to determine your love for them, if you had the power?

What I would do is immaterial. In any case it is not for man to question the acts of The Lord.

The worthwhile from the useless. A tare is a thing that in a filed looks like wheat but actually is useless.

 

I was asking you to stop using metaphors and just speak normally.

I did.

Its not for me to say. You still have the choice. Be a saint or be a sinner, gain the benefit from one, suffer for the second..

 

Of course it is for you to say, you're the Christian. Do you think it is right to have someone suffer for all eternity because they did not accept the God? You DO have an opinion. Either you do or you don't. Do I deserve it or not?

 

I trust in the judgment of The Lord. You have the option to determine your own afterlife for eternity. I believe that you deserve that choice.

 

Can you stop referring to metal.

 

I can, but I choose not to.

[spook]

That was not slavery in the meaning of bondsman (or even slave in the KJV). That was theft pure and simple and as so is absolutely prohibited in The Bible and I detest and deplore such things.

 

 

So your form of slavery is ok then? Joseph being one.

 

I generally find that the single word “yes” is unambiguous as an answer to a question.

 

“CH” raised two questions. I gave unambiguous answers to those questions.

 

If you read and understand my comments regarding the slavery as took place in the establishment of the Southern states of the US you will find the answer to your reference to the events in Genesis 30.

[spook]

And here is where you prove my point. You had to concede that the bible sees nothing wrong in slavery.

 

I did not have to, I never suggested otherwise. You might care to read what I wrote in reply to “CH” a couple of “posts” back relating to slavery.

 

Now take for example the sexual laws/rules laid out in leviticus 20:10-21

 

laws regarding who you cannot have sex with, yet no mention of an age limit, dont sleep with your sister, dont sleep with your aunt nor your brothers wife etc etc, why not condense these to no sex with any relative, and spare some room for an age limit.

 

In biblical times young marriages were common, most would be considered statutory rape by todays standards, and some would have beeen considered paedophilia and yet nowhere does the bible condemn sex with a child, nor give any age limit beyond which a person can be consider an adult.

 

Again the bible has a failure by omission when it comes to a moral issue.

 

Oh dear, here we go again. Even though I utterly condemn the Roman Catholic church when I read what you have written I do at times wonder if Clement the eleventh didn’t have a point.

 

To begin with marriage in the meaning of the word today could not take place before the girl had her first period and back in the day that would have been around the age of 14.

 

Not that long since marriage in certain US states permitted it, in fact in NY under certain situations this is still the case (AFAIK). Remember the furor surrounding Jerry Lee Lewis and his 13/14/15 year old bride? It wasn’t all that long ago.

 

In Biblical times Sex outside of marriage was a huge no-no, and would have resulted in real problems for the boy and the girl and the families, especially because marriage was much more about cementing family ties than about two people joining out of their choice. That, and the law relating to when a child became a woman pretty much puts the kybosh on stupid accusations about Christianity not condemning paedophillia. And there is more, MUCH more explicit about child abuse. Matthew 18:6 :-

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.”

 

Take note of the word “offend”. It covers many things including pedophilia.

[jimbms]

mmm notice no answer to my question spook

[Chinahand]

[Chinahand]

I do have to say I wonder how many other people find it little short of incredible that here we are in the 21st century and one of our members is proudly telling us he has no moral issue with a person being bound into slavery for life, to be passed on as a chattle. That such people should accept their fate even if their master is harsh.

 

In the world today many destitute people give up their children to traffickers, or place themselves in bounded servitude - they get smuggled in airless containers and if they are lucky have to work in sweat shops, if they are unlucky and young in brothels - a fate mainly for the girls, but not exclusively.

 

Spook says directly: none of this do I have a problem with - no problem for the poverty stricken selling themselves - the verses I put up condone slavery for life, with the slave inherited when their master dies. Spook doesn't have concerns.

 

And why does Spook have no moral qualms about this - because he is religious and so has to see the bible as some God inbued holy thing.

 

Here is the verse out of the King James: read it Spook - read it and think about it - think about little Thai girls, or Sri Lankan mothers who for the sake of their children endure servitude.

 

Here's the verse I've asked you to read:

 

Leviticus 25:44-46 (King James Version)

 

44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

 

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

 

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

 

Apply that to today's world - someone in bondship, for life, ruled over with rigour - oh yes that describes the fate of many many people. It is a living, current evil in this world. And Spook in his religious blindness has simply lost his moral compass and sees no moral issue as long as these people have sold themselves.

 

Shivers.