Does God have a right to take life?

[Goonie]

This thread is just off topic, and I have to agree somewhat that people are now ganging up on just one contributor.

 

[Blank Stair]

There's no such thing as spiritual warfare.

You're mistaken.

Your link just labels everything that doesn't outright agree with Christianity as "the enemy".

From that perspective one could word your observations so as to then make atheists like yourself and humanists to share something in common with such Christians.
"everything that doesn't outright agree with atheism or humanism is the enemy."
Something that is afforded as something more than an allusion in these forums. Ergo, that behavior serves to give proof to the links identification of such symptoms as that which is known as spiritual warfare.

Thanks. That helped this discussion quite a bit.

 

[Blank Stair]

This thread is just off topic, and I have to agree somewhat that people are now ganging up on just one contributor.

Not people, as in all people. A minority number of people faith labeled as sharing that unique similar identity. While in the process of ganging up on the one Christian in their sights.

Spiritual warfare.
Behavior precludes the claim it is a myth.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

1. Do you believe that the Bible presents a perfect moral model?
2. Do you believe that Biblical morality is subject to change?
3. Do you believe that buying (and thereby owning) slaves would be an immoral act for a person living today?
4. Do you believe that selling slaves would be an immoral act for a person living today?
5. Do you believe that buying (and thereby owning) slaves would be an immoral act for a person living in Biblical times?
6. Do you believe that selling slaves would be an immoral act for a person living in Biblical times?
7. If you answered "yes" to 3 and/or 4, do you have any Biblical justification for that belief?
8. If you answered "yes" to 5 and/or 6, do you have any Biblical justification for that belief?

The Old Law was a charter, in part of an agreement. The Levites had to do what was necessary to succeed, so God said if you must have slaves, these are the conditions. It was never encouraged by God, just granted for the sake of worldly progress.
Biblical morality is not subject to change, because it does not give that option. Slavery was instated in light of a necessity and system of doing things, which was much more mutual and for progressive and punitive purposes. There were not many resources then, setting slaves free often meant them just starving out in the desert- it was a fundamental working of mankind.

All your questions do not need to be answered, as well they shouldn't- playing 21 Questions with people who haven't done anything but basically grandstand through an entire thread_

Well...granted there are more of them than you, so you'd expect them to have more posts, but regardless...

The point is that for my 11 posts, there's an upward of three or four in between every single one of them- even if I'm just pertaining to one of them.
It's clear cut jumping, and their goading is out of control.

 

[Foxhole87]

The Old Law was a charter, in part of an agreement. The Levites had to do what was necessary to succeed, so God said if you must have slaves, these are the conditions. It was never encouraged by God, just granted for the sake of worldly progress.
Biblical morality is not subject to change, because it does not give that option. Slavery was instated in light of a necessity and system of doing things, which was much more mutual and for progressive and punitive purposes. There were not many resources then, setting slaves free often meant them just starving out in the desert- it was a fundamental working of mankind.

All your questions do not need to be answered, as well they shouldn't- playing 21 Questions with people who haven't done anything but basically grandstand through an entire thread_

The point is that for my 11 posts, there's an upward of three or four in between every single one of them- even if I'm just pertaining to one of them.
It's clear cut jumping, and their goading is out of control.

First off, if you aren't interested in having a conversation, don't engage in the conversation.
Second, what is "clear cut jumping"?
Third, what in this thread constitutes "goading"?

Now to address your reply:

1. You don't consider it strange or somehow odd that slavery is the moral issue God waves his hand at in dismissal, though? There are plenty of other commands (not wearing clothes of two different fiber, not planting two kinds of plants in the same field, etc) that are really meaningless in any context. If your interpretation of Biblical history is true, what other moral abominations were "necessary evils" in Biblical times?

2. Why even have slaves to begin with, though? Even if there aren't resources, why do slaves (humans who are the property of other humans) need to be the property of their masters? Why couldn't a Hebrew enslave his fellow Hebrew, if it was simply a matter of resources available?

3. If faced with starving in the desert or being the property of a person, would you readily chose to be the property of a person?

Based on your reply:

1. Do you believe that the Bible presents a perfect moral model?
2. Do you believe that Biblical morality is subject to change? No.
3. Do you believe that buying (and thereby owning) slaves would be an immoral act for a person living today?
4. Do you believe that selling slaves would be an immoral act for a person living today?
5. Do you believe that buying (and thereby owning) slaves would be an immoral act for a person living in Biblical times? No.
6. Do you believe that selling slaves would be an immoral act for a person living in Biblical times? No.
7. If you answered "yes" to 3 and/or 4, do you have any Biblical justification for that belief?
8. If you answered "yes" to 5 and/or 6, do you have any Biblical justification for that belief?

Are you not answering the other three (perhaps 5) questions on purpose?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

1. You don't consider it strange or somehow odd that slavery is the moral issue God waves his hand at in dismissal, though? There are plenty of other commands (not wearing clothes of two different fiber, not planting two kinds of plants in the same field, etc) that are really meaningless in any context. If your interpretation of Biblical history is true, what other moral abominations were "necessary evils" in Biblical times?

The Old Law is centered around the Levites, or otherwise anyone who believed. It was not universal, and so a lot of the commands have an exclusive and personal tone. There were many small disciplines, and they are not meant to be put alongside the more serious ones. Arguments for example that try to insinuate homosexuality should be okay because we eat pork or wear mixed clothes- those insinuations have no place in reason.

Slavery was actually illegal among Jews, they weren't allowed to enslave themselves. Moreover, they were once slaves themselves, let's not neglect that important detail right there- if they were enslaved for hundreds of years, what would cause them to need or desire slaves right after?

Enslavement was a worldwide ordinance, it was a centrifugal part of the world. For a notion not to partake in it was pretty much to not take partake in the economy. Many in this new, modern age just sit back and demonize pretty much all of past humanity, like they are Supreme Justices of Ominpotent Righteousness who have reached some moral apex.

~Pff~

3. If faced with starving in the desert or being the property of a person, would you readily chose to be the property of a person?

Too bad you can't ask the Levites. The reality is that it wasn't until Moses started putting plagues unto Egypt that they had any confidence in leaving into a barren desert, most likely to die if not for God's help such as raining manna onto them (food).

 

[.Mikha'el.]

ON!

Thread closed for review!

OFF!

 

[.Mikha'el.]

ON!

Thread closed for good.

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
● Only the person to whom the post is addressed may report the other. Anyone may report generalized flames or goads which are addressed to a group of members.
● Moderators have the right to report egregious violations of flaming or goading.
● Clear violations of the flaming rule will result in bans.

OFF!