Maintaining a Current Belief?

[cvanwey]

Because we're talking about the OT, which deals with Israel: a group of people in the Middle East.

Moral law is for everyone, not just a confined region, isn't it? God is not powerful enough to dispense His message(s) elsewhere? He instead waits for people/humans to much later dispense the message(s), by means of human oral tradition, human writings - (even though many were/are illiterate), and travel. Okay?

No, it doesn't. Even though the OT doesn't say, "do not own slaves," it has several books that approve the story of a group of slaves escaping from their masters. There are also commandments about marrying a widow, so that she would not end up penniless, about releasing slaves after a certain period of time, and about treating aliens well. In the NT, we have St Paul advising Philemon to treat his run-away slave well and in a different place he writes:

Gal 3:26-28 In fact, you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. Indeed, as many of you as were baptized into Christ have been clothed with Christ. There is not Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for you are all one and the same in Christ Jesus.

This may be bad news for Jews, slave owners, and men. It is certainly very good news for Greeks, for slaves, and for women.

I'm sorry @Andrewn , but your 'apologetics' is really shinning through, when addressing this topic Let's again recap:

The idea behind 'covenant based theology', the claim you ascribe to, states the following:

If an instruction is posed in the NT, it's binding forever.
If an instruction is posed in both the OT and NT, it's binding forever.
If an instruction is posed in the OT, but never mentioned in the NT, it is no longer binding.

Do you agree? Yes or no?

For now, I will state 'yes', upon your behalf. Okay, moving forward...

You admit you are covenant based, not dispensational.

The NT mentions slavery, by name. The NT does not mention 'shrimp', by name. Hence, 'slavery' is okay and moral, because Jesus mentions slavery again in the NT, and never abolishes the act. But you can now apparently freely eat shrimp. Why? Jesus does not reaffirm 'not to eat shrimp' in the NT.

Again, if you adhere to covenant based theology, you must follow the logic, for which you profess

If the Bible says to treat slaves like brothers, this is revolutionary. Slaves treated like brothers are no longer a slave. Indeed, they're better off than many employees in this day and age. Still, the Bible doesn't say, "Do not own slaves." That would be like telling you, "Do not use gasoline, it damages the environment." Slaves were the engine for the economy, you need a source of energy to drive the economy. We need a different source of energy to be able to not use gasoline. And God ultimately gave the world the technology to wean us off the unjust source of energy.

I read that the ratio of free people to slaves in ancient Greece was 1:5 or something like that. You can't change that kind of system overnight. It takes time and wisdom / technology.

Did you just finish an apologetics course? It sounds like it...?

- God is not overly concerned about the 'economy'. Heck, He tells followers to give away their wealth. He tells people if they have possessions, it takes away or distracts from worshiping Him. He tells the rich it is easier for a camel to thread the eye of a needle. Your argument above is the same as the argument used later in the West. -- "If slavery gets abolished, the economy will collapse."

- The OT tells slave owners it's okay to beat and own slaves for life. The NT mentions slavery again, by name, and tells the slaves to respect their slave owners, especially the Christian ones. Since the NT mentions slavery again, by name, and Jesus never mentions His abolition for the topic, slavery remains permanent apparently.

- And in reference to your gasoline analogy. Neither the OT nor the NT mentions gasoline. So I guess it's okay

- Slave owners used the Bible to justify their slavery practices. You could/can cite Biblical Verses to support the argument, as well.

Like I eluded to prior, sounds more like human invented law; passed off as God pronouncements. To assert the alternative, and to also assert He loves all creation, requires a bit of hoop jumping. I mean, apologetics...

 

[cvanwey]

.

 

[Andrewn]

Moral law is for everyone, not just a confined region, isn't it? God is not powerful enough to dispense His message(s) elsewhere? He instead waits for people/humans to much later dispense the message(s), by means of human oral tradition, human writings - (even though many were/are illiterate), and travel. Okay?

Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, Chinese etc had their own classics. The OT was for Israel. If you have to argue about something so obvious, it's hopeless to have a conversation.

For now, I will state 'yes', upon your behalf. Okay, moving forward... You admit you are covenant based, not dispensational.

I also said that every person has their own faith. I'm presenting my own faith as an example of how one Christian thinks. You will never have my faith or anyone else's faith. You can only read and listen to different people and ultimately you have your own faith.

The NT mentions slavery, by name. The NT does not mention 'shrimp', by name. Hence, 'slavery' is okay and moral, because Jesus mentions slavery again in the NT, and never abolishes the act.

If this is your conclusion after reading what I wrote, so be it, I can't change your mind.

God is not overly concerned about the 'economy'. Heck, He tells followers to give away their wealth. He tells people if they have possessions, it takes away or distracts from worshiping Him. He tells the rich it is easier for a camel to thread the eye of a needle.

Christianity never suggested that all people should give up all their possessions and become monks. But some people's personal faith may drive them to do just that.

And in reference to your gasoline analogy. Neither the OT nor the NT mentions gasoline. So I guess it's okay

And let the environment continue to deteriorate and kill humanity? There is no religion without science and common sense.

Slave owners used the Bible to justify their slavery practices. You could/can cite Biblical Verses to support the argument, as well.

Every person has his own faith and will be judged according to his actions.

 

[cvanwey]

Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, Chinese etc had their own classics. The OT was for Israel. If you have to argue about something so obvious, it's hopeless to have a conversation.

Not trying to argue here, quite frankly. Just expressing an observation. Which is to say, God is not powerful enough to express His moral messages to all, just a select few people in one small region of the globe? And instead, awaits this given message(s) to eventually span the globe? But before so, knowing the original message(s) will get altered, many times over? (all rhetorical, you don't need to answer). I have a gut feeling we might agree, more than you want or care to admit here.

Using Occam's razor, again, what's more likely, if you also adhere to the claimed characteristics of God? Please do answer below, however (A or B):

A) This is how God communicates
B) This is how humans communicate

If you continue not wanting to address this 'observation', it's okay

I also said that every person has their own faith. I'm presenting my own faith as an example of how one Christian thinks. You will never have my faith or anyone else's faith. You can only read and listen to different people and ultimately you have your own faith.

I did not really want to, again, get into the specifics about 'slavery', but.....

Let me now give you an example of your supposed 'faith'. You stated prior:

"about releasing slaves after a certain period of time"

The above is only in reference to the Hebrew servants, not the 'foreign' slaves. You left out a huge part there Which raises the question...

Are you ignorant to this assertion in the Bible, or, are you instead willfully omitting specific parts?

Or how about:

"and about treating aliens well."

In regards to 'slavery', the Bible states your slaves are to come from the nations around you, and from them, you may by slaves. They may also be your property for life.

I again ask, is your current 'faith' ignorant to such passages, or, are you willfully omitting passages?

If this is your conclusion after reading what I wrote, so be it, I can't change your mind.

Quite frankly, my conclusion is the later; willful omission to what is also said in the Bible. You appear well versed in the Bible, thus, I have to assume you know the 'full story' about the topic of 'slavery'. Sorry. So now, I will be the recipient to 'apologetics'.

Christianity never suggested that all people should give up all their possessions and become monks. But some people's personal faith may drive them to do just that.

God never suggests concern for the economy, and decides to use 'slavery' as it's resolve, does He???? That justification looks to instead be you, and other apologists

And let the environment continue to deteriorate and kill humanity? There is no religion without science and common sense.

Common sense suggests such authors weren't even aware of what gasoline even was... Heck, we did not know gasoline was a pollutant, until several decades ago. Do we now give 'God' the glory for this finding?

Furthermore, you missed my point. If God mentions a topic, then we must adhere to what God says about the topic. In regards to slavery, it looks to be perfectly fine, forever apparently.

Now getting back to the task at hand.

Are you STILL covenant based? Meaning, do you still ascribe to what I pre-answered for you, prior? Yes or no? (i.e.)

The idea behind 'covenant based theology', the claim you ascribe to, states the following:

If an instruction is posed in the NT, it's binding forever.
If an instruction is posed in both the OT and NT, it's binding forever.
If an instruction is posed in the OT, but never mentioned in the NT, it is no longer binding.

Every person has his own faith and will be judged according to his actions.

Okay, a blank assertion, great.

 

[Andrewn]

You stated prior: "about releasing slaves after a certain period of time" The above is only in reference to the Hebrew servants, not the 'foreign' slaves. You left out a huge part there Which raises the question... Are you ignorant to this assertion in the Bible, or, are you instead willfully omitting specific parts? Or how about: "and about treating aliens well." In regards to 'slavery', the Bible states your slaves are to come from the nations around you, and from them, you may by slaves. They may also be your property for life. I again ask, is your current 'faith' ignorant to such passages, or, are you willfully omitting passages?

Would you please provide biblical references?

I found some info online and will go back to study it.

Slavery in the Hebrew Bible
Slavery in the Bible | My Jewish Learning

 

[cvanwey]

Somehow I doubt you are ignorant, but okay. I'll play your game

I'm ignorant of the above. Would you please provide biblical references?

The Hebrew servant is allowed to go free, at year seven.

“If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything."

However, the male Hebrew's given family is to stay with the slave owner(s) forever:

"If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free."

Since the slave owner is allowed to keep all the slave given offspring, and also the slave given wife, the male Hebrew may opt to stay as well, for life, since he is not allowed to take his given family with him:

"But if the servant declares, ‘I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,’ 6 then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life."

The slave owner is allowed to beat their slaves, as long as they do not die. The slave is also deemed the slave owner's property or money, for life:

“Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

At least the slave is allowed to go free if their teeth or eyes are removed. So that's something... This might be because a slave who can't see, is a worthless slave. Maybe this is why slaves are often beaten from the back side? It's hard to knock out the eye or the teeth, from the back, isn't it? But the slave owner is not said to be punished here. Only to let the slave go free:

“An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth."

"Foreigners" are not treated 'well', as slaves either. They are kept for life, and deemed property:

“‘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 bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Please remember, many were BORN into slavery. Hence, they will be born slaves, and die as slaves. They can be freely bought and sold, as expressed from the Bible directly above. The NT comes along, and mentions slavery again, but Jesus does not abolish this practice. Thus, slavery is still okay and an acceptable moral practice apparently.

I again ask you. The question you continue to avoid....

Are you STILL covenant based? If so, Jesus's covenant stands forever. Slavery is a-okay, under the specified tenets of the Bible, as expressed above.

 

[Andrewn]

I again ask you. The question you continue to avoid.... Are you STILL covenant based? If so, Jesus's covenant stands forever. Slavery is a-okay, under the specified tenets of the Bible, as expressed above.

Slavery is never OK. What you wrote, and the articles I quoted, show that the Bible provided some regulations. Unfortunately, it didn't completely prohibit slavery. I discussed the issue previously in message #76.

Using Occam's razor, again, what's more likely, if you also adhere to the claimed characteristics of God? Please do answer below, however (A or B): A) This is how God communicates. B) This is how humans communicate.

(A).

Somehow I doubt you are ignorant, but okay. I'll play your game

I never said that slaves had a wonderful life in Israel. But here is how St Paul talks about a slave called Onesimus:

Philemon 1:9 I am appealing to you, instead, on the basis of love, just as I, Paul, am an old man and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. 10 I am appealing to you on behalf of my child Onesimus. I became his father while I was in chains.

12 I have sent him (who is my very heart) back to you. Welcome him.

15 Perhaps this is why he was separated from you for a while: so that you would have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave, but as more than a slave, as a dear brother. He certainly is dear to me, but he is even more of a dear brother to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. 17 So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.

 

[cvanwey]

Slavery is never OK.

Then you must revoke your prior status, as being 'covenant based'. Otherwise, you look to contradict basic logic. Are you covenant based or not???? I've asked you several times now. Please answer the yes or no question.

The idea behind 'covenant based theology', the claim you ascribe to, states the following:

If an instruction is posed in the NT, it's binding forever.
If an instruction is posed in both the OT and NT, it's binding forever.
If an instruction is posed in the OT, but never mentioned in the NT, it is no longer binding.

What you wrote, and the articles I quoted, show that the Bible provided some regulations.

And in my last response, I exposed where you either deliberately avoided specific assertions, or are ignorant to them. Hence, you need to reconcile that your believed upon Book forever sanctions a practice you state is "never OK". Not my problem, yours.

Unfortunately, it didn't completely prohibit slavery.

It never does prohibit slavery, that's my point. Under covenant based theology, slavery is still fine, as 'regulated' by the Bible. (i.e.) Keep the foreigner slaves for life. If they are born into slavery, you can keep them forever. You can pass them down to your children. Beat them, just don't kill them. Keep the females and children for life. Keep the Hebrew servants too, just give them a companion.

I discussed the issue previously in message #76.

For which I addressed in post #86.

(A).

Not sure I believe you, but it's okay.

I never said that slaves had a wonderful life in Israel.

I never claimed that is what you stated either... But you attempted to 'justify', using apologetics. (i.e.) "God used slavery to help the economy." I don't recall God justifying slavery in this manner? Do you?

You also try to state it is 'properly regulated'. Well, take a crack at post #86 then....

But here is how St Paul talks about a slave called Onesimus:

Philemon 1:9 I am appealing to you, instead, on the basis of love, just as I, Paul, am an old man and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ. 10 I am appealing to you on behalf of my child Onesimus. I became his father while I was in chains.

12 I have sent him (who is my very heart) back to you. Welcome him.

15 Perhaps this is why he was separated from you for a while: so that you would have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave, but as more than a slave, as a dear brother. He certainly is dear to me, but he is even more of a dear brother to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord. 17 So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.

Great. How do you square this with the Verses in post #86, just for starters?

 

[cvanwey]

@Andrewn

Please take no offense, but it looks we are seeing, first hand, a black and white example, as to what is clinically known as the "backfire effect". Please look at the title of my post, and then study up on this effect.

 

[Andrewn]

Please take no offense, but it looks we are seeing, first hand, a black and white example, as to what is clinically known as the "backfire effect". Please look at the title of my post, and then study up on this effect.

This cuts both ways .

 

[cvanwey]

This cuts both ways .

Sure it does. I've done it too, in the past. Especially when I was a Christian. But I keep demonstrating how you are in direct conflict with yourself. And rather than answer the questions I pose, or address the many direct examples I supply, you no longer address them.

You believe the Bible is the word of God, I do not. So here we are

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've been engaging your responses for three years now. They often times end up the same. When pressed for your core principles, you duck out. Either by way of stop responding, an insult, you change the subject, or you hide behind your 'advanced education' - as if I'm not well versed enough to understand.

I asked you for agreed upon 'core beliefs'. Your given response would be really no different than asking an ovo vegetarian what are their agreed upon core beliefs, and the interlocutor merely states, 'oh, we eat vegetables and eggs.' It's redundant. The title 'double-speaks' the given definition. "kapeesh'? What are the agreed upon core beliefs?

I asked you this of Christianity, and you deliberately exclude salvation. Salvation cuts to the core of Christian beliefs. You want no part in this topic, because you are abundantly aware this is NOT agreed upon. And yet, Jesus speaks about it in several spots. I ask you follow up questions, and once again, you retort.

So no, you are not ducking out for this 'reason'. You are attempting to find any excuse imaginable, to not answer the real question(s).



As soon as I start to get into a topic, for which you bring up, you run. Case/point:

- Are you even aware of the many presented pitfalls, when admitting to both covenant based theology and dispensationalism? If so, how do you resolve these pitfalls?

- Why Jesus?

- As stated above, you guys can't even agree at the 'core level'. And yet, you eluded to the fact that you do not quibble over certain topics, and only focus on the fact that Christians agree, at the core level.

- Name a prophecy?

When pressed for any of these, you run away.

Well, I can tell you, this becomes quite frustrating. But, do what you gotta do, I guess

I didn't run away. I just don't have the patience or the time to field your questions with 10,000 word essays and/or simple discussions the way that you'd prefer to have them.

Sure, I do duck out occassionly ------ IF I sense that someone absolutely refuses to engage my viewpoint, my sources and my line of inquiry. Why should I bother laying out points if my interlocutor refuses to acknowledge the points that I'm making. To continue to do so, as I've done with you so many times, would be the height of a waste of time.

Additionally, some of the concepts I offer you PRECLUDE concern with various issues, but apparently, you don't realize that this is the case. So, I'm not going to keep attempting to fill you in when you want answers the way----and only the way----that you want them.

As far as Covenant based theoogy and Dispenstationalism are concerned, I'm not seeing any problem with what I've stated so far. Apparently the real problem here is in your misunderstanding of my praxis. I never said that my praxis involves some kind of resolution between these two theologies. Why should it when I already said I don't specifically subscribe to either one? You proceed to continue on, however, as if these are the ONLY TWO ways to even conceive of the essence of biblical belief.

So, it seems like we're at an impasse. I stated at the outset, and have been stating over and over and over again, that I'm an Existentialist first and foremost. You don't seem to acknowledge that point. I've also stated that I have my own approach or praxis. You don't see to acknowledge that either, and you then proceed to insist that for me to be a Christian.....well.... that I somehow HAVE to subscribe to one or the other of the two forms of theology (or whatever other theological ideas you feel you want to poke on) that you're juggling here.

As if! And my response is a hardy, "NO, NO I DON'T !!!!" I don't have to subscribe to any Reformed theology. I don't have to be Evangelical. I don't have to be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or even Neo-Orthodox. I don't HAVE to be a part of ANY specific denomation that has existed in the history of Christendom and I don't have to sign-on with any of them in their respective theological frameworks. I don't have to be Southern Baptist nor Church of Christ nor Episcopalian nor Presbyterian nor Methodist nor Church of Christ, etc. etc. etc. etc. Yet, time and time again, here comes someone, whether they be some fellow Christian or even an Ex-Christian Skeptic (atheist?), who deigns to get into my face and intensely insist that "NO SIR! YOU MUST, YOU MUST BE A PART OF OUR DENOMINATIONAL REGIME IN ORDER TO TRULY, TRULY BE A CHRISTIAN!"

Uh UH!

No, there's nothing I MUST DO to be a Christian, other than to take the bible seriously, focus on the person of Jesus and remain open to ongoing learning and study within my life within the parameters of being an educated person.

No, you want to consider yourself to actually be giving me an intellectual run for my existential and spiritual "money," then I DARE you (or anyone else as far as that goes) to join me in various studies of solid academic sources for discussion and see how it all fairs in the wash as we study and scrutinize.

Are you willing to do that, Cvanway? Actually engage in full-blown study with books at the center? Or do you just want to keep pushing the old canard that the only way for Christians to offer "apology" for their respective faith is to "simply" answer your questions without any recourse to, or any specific deeper engagement with, substantive scholarly sources?

 

[Tone]

Ha ha ha

@2PhiloVoid,



LLLLLLLLEETTTTSSSSSSSSS RRRRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIDE!!!!!!!!!!


VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMM VROOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't run away. I just don't have the patience or the time to field your questions with 10,000 word essays and/or simple discussions the way that you'd prefer to have them.

Sure, I do duck out occassionly ------ IF I sense that someone absolutely refuses to engage my viewpoint, my sources and my line of inquiry. Why should I bother laying out points if my interlocutor refuses to acknowledge the points that I'm making. To continute to do so, as I've done with you so many times, would be the height of a waste of time.

Additionally, some of the concepts I offer you PRECLUDE concern with various issues, but apparently, you don't realize that this is the case. So, I'm not going to keep attempting to fill you in when you want answers the way----and only the way----that you want them.

As far as Covenant based theoogy and Dispenstationalism are concerned, I'm not seeing any problem with what I've stated so far. Apparently the real problem here is in your misunderstanding of my praxis. I never said that my praxis involves some kind of resolution between these two theologies. Why should it when I already said I don't specifically subscribe to either one? You proceed to continue on, however, as if these are the ONLY TWO ways to even conceive of the essence of biblical belief.

So, it seems like we're at an impasse. I stated out the outset, and have been stating over and over and over again that I'm an Existentialist first and foremost. You don't seem to acknowledge that point. I've also stated that I have my own approach or praxis. You don't see to acknowledge that either, and you then proceed to insist that for me to be a Christian.....well.... that I somehow HAVE to subscribe to one or the other of the two forms of theology (or whatever other theological ideas you feel you want to poke on) that you're juggling here.

As if! And my response is a hardy, "NO, NO I DON'T !!!!" I don't have to subscribe to any Reformed theology. I don't have to be Evangelical. I don't don't have to be Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox or even Neo-Orthodox. I don't HAVE to be a part of ANY specific denomation that has existed in the history of Christendom. I don't have to be Southern Baptist nor Church of Christ nor Episcopalian nor Presbyterian nor Methodist nor Church of Christ, etc. etc. etc. etc. Yet, time and time again, here comes someone, whether they be some fellow Christian or even an Ex-Christian Skeptic (atheist?), who deigns to get into my face and intensely insist that "NO SIR! YOU MUST, YOU MUST BE A PART OF OUR DENOMINATIONAL REGIME IN ORDER TO TRULY, TRULY BE A CHRISTIAN!"

Uh UH!

No, there's nothing I MUST DO to be a Christian, other than to take the bible seriously, focus on the person of Jesus and remain open to ongoing learning and study within my life within the parameters of being an educated person.

No, you want to consider yourself to actually be giving me an intellectual run for my existential and spiritual "money," then I DARE you (or anyone else as far as that goes) to join me in various studies of solid academic sources for discussion and see how it all fairs in the wash as we study and scrutinize.

Are you willing to do that, Cvanway? Actually engage in full-blown study with books at the center? Or do you just want to keep pushing the old canard that the only way for Christians to offer "apology" for their respective faith is to "simply" answer your questions without any recourse to, or any specific deeper engagement with, substantive scholarly sources?

LOL. As I've told you many many many times now prior.... If I wanted to join a book club, or engage in an upper level classroom setting, where we ultimately write a dissertation, I would opt to do that.... But you and I are HERE, in the apologetics arena.

Claiming you are an 'existentialist' is fine and all, but you really go no further. It would be like you asking me...

Do you more-so adhere to A or B, on this topic? And I answer, well, I'm an aristocrat, I do not prescribe to either. I might answer with, um, okay? I guess I'll take it upon myself to fill in the blanks, since you do not want to go so 'deep'.

However, when you do start to broach upon more specific points, and I do also address them, you seem to shut down .

You seem to want to huff and puff, and keep telling me how you are uber educated, and that we need to dive deep.

My questions here really aren't that deep Heck, many are either yes or no, or, A or B answers, or straight forward.

Are you more-so covenant or dispensational?

Isn't salvation a core belief in Christianity?

Why Jesus?

Which prophecy?

I sometimes feel you get annoyed with questions. Feel free to ask me why I don't believe, at present, other. I can answer, without having to mention my educational background.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

LOL. As I've told you many many many times now prior.... If I wanted to join a book club, or engage in an upper level classroom setting, where we ultimately write a dissertation, I would opt to do that.... But you and I are HERE, in the apologetics arena.

Claiming you are an 'existentialist' is fine and all, but you really go no further. It would be like you asking me...

Do you more-so adhere to A or B, on this topic? And I answer, well, I'm an aristocrat, I do not prescribe to either. I might answer with, um, okay? I guess I'll take it upon myself to fill in the blanks, since you do not want to go so 'deep'.

However, when you do start to broach upon more specific points, and I do also address them, you seem to shut down .

You seem to want to huff and puff, and keep telling me how you are uber educated, and that we need to dive deep.

My questions here really aren't that deep Hec, many are either yes or no, or, A or B answers.

Are you more-so covenant or dispensational?

Isn't salvation a core belief in Christianity?

Why Jesus?

Which prophecy?

Dear Sir, what portion of "I don't think Christian theology is or really can be systematic, whether in method of approach or in form of conclusion" don't you understand?

IF theology can't be systematic and thereby really comprehensive, then there is no such thing as a 'last authoritative theological word' that would buttress and somehow "make real" EITHER Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology. At best, we have patchwork theologies (plural) that we all wrestle with as we "attempt" (and I use that word loosely) to make heads or tails of the connection of the O.T. to the N.T.

Now..................................do you understand how this will PRECLUDE the necessity of my consideration of either theology you're poking on here? Or don't you read books like Five Views on Law and Gospel - Zondervan Counterpoint Series [.....just for starters....] ?

At best, all we can do is realize the hodge podge we have and make of it what we can, however inconclusively and however less than exacting it all will be.

 

[cvanwey]

Dear Sir, what portion of "I don't think Christian theology is or really can be systematic, whether in method of approach to or in form of conclusions" don't you understand?

IF theology can't be systematic and thereby really comprehensive, then there is no such thing as a 'last authoritative theological word' that would buttress and somehow "make real" EITHER Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology. At best, we have patchwork theologies (plural) that we all wrestle with as we "attempt" (and I use that word loosely) to make heads or tails of the connection of the O.T. to the N.T.

Now..................................do you understand how this will PRECLUDE the necessity of my consideration of either theology you're poking on here? Or don't you read books like Five Views on Law and Gospel - Zondervan Counterpoint Series [.....just for starters....] ?

At best, all we can do is realize the hodge podge we have and make of it what we can, however inconclusively and however less than exacting it all will be.

I understand that you continue to name drop, and can't answer questions, as they are actually asked.

Just like if I were to ask you, are you MORE-SO a republican or a democrat? You may actually be a claimed independent. Or, claim the exact same set of circumstances about politics, as you did above with religion. However, you can still answer the actual question posed.

But you DON'T.

Peace

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand that you continue to name drop, and can't answer questions, as they are actually asked.

Just like if I were to ask you, are you MORE-SO a republican or a democrat? You may actually be a claimed independent. Or, claim the exact same set of circumstances about politics, as you did above with religion. However, you can still answer the actual question posed.

But you DON'T.

Peace

I can't help it if your OP is a mess and doesn't seem to present a clear and distinct focal point and one singular question.

Do you want to know why I maintain belief?

OR​

Do you want to know why I don't have a massive problem with the O.T. jiving or not jiving with the N.T. ?

OR​

Do you want me to tell you why Jesus and not some other religious figure?

OR​

Do you want me to delve into some singular prophecy?

Which is it, cvanway? All of the thematic hop-scotching you do gets tiring (and a trifle ridiculous) and I'm not obligated to keep answering a host of questions that you just serendipitously decide to toss out when the going gets tough.

 

[cvanwey]

I can't help it if your OP is a mess and doesn't seem to present a clear and distinct focal point and one singular question.

Do you want to know why I maintain belief?

OR​

Do you want to know why I don't have a massive problem with the O.T. jiving or not jiving with the N.T. ?

OR​

Do you want me to tell you why Jesus and not some other religious figure?

OR​

Do you want me to delve into some singular prophecy?

Which is it, cvanway? All of the thematic hop-scotching you do gets tiring (and a trifle ridiculous) and I'm not obligated to keep answering a host of questions that you just serendipistously decided to toss out when the going gets tough.

@2PhiloVoid

I'm going to stop you here.... About a year ago, you stated you were leaving, unless you see someone new. This was false. You seem to want to continue engaging with me, over and over and over again, in spite of you seeming to elude to the fact that I'm mentally inferior to you in some way, shape, or form. And when I do go toe to toe with you; you either insult me, ignore me, change the subject, or hide behind your 'credentials'.

I do not engage you. You engage me. Over and over again. You entered into this topic. I did not ask for you, and/or call upon you.

You both baffle and puzzle me. I'm truly vexed. Well, I'm done.

Do whatever you wish, and answer however you wish. You are now on my ignore list.

Peace out

 

[Andrewn]

Then you must revoke your prior status, as being 'covenant based'. Otherwise, you look to contradict basic logic. Are you covenant based or not???? I've asked you several times now. Please answer the yes or no question.

The idea behind 'covenant based theology', the claim you ascribe to, states the following:

If an instruction is posed in the NT, it's binding forever.
If an instruction is posed in both the OT and NT, it's binding forever.
If an instruction is posed in the OT, but never mentioned in the NT, it is no longer binding.

It never does prohibit slavery, that's my point. Under covenant based theology, slavery is still fine, as 'regulated' by the Bible. (i.e.) Keep the foreigner slaves for life. If they are born into slavery, you can keep them forever. You can pass them down to your children. Beat them, just don't kill them. Keep the females and children for life. Keep the Hebrew servants too, just give them a companion.

I don't see the NT condoning slavery. A slave who is treated as a brother, as a Christianity demands, is practically an employee. St Paul as ked Philemon to welcome Onesimus not only as a brother but even as he would welcome St Paul himself.

Gal 3:28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.

Sure, it has taken centuries for Christians to understand the full implications of that statement, but this is how God chooses to speak.

Using Occam's razor, again, what's more likely, if you also adhere to the claimed characteristics of God? Please do answer below, however (A or B):

A) This is how God communicates
B) This is how humans communicate

(A).

Not sure I believe you, but it's okay.

God speaks in a soft, whispering voice:

1Ki 19:12-13 After the earthquake there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. After the fire there was a soft, whispering voice. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak, and he went out and stood at the entrance to the cave. Then a voice came to him and said, “Why are you here, Elijah?”

You believe the Bible is the word of God, I do not. So here we are

I believe Jesus is the Word of God:

Mat 12:19-20 He will not quarrel or cry out, nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets. A crushed reed He will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, until He brings forth justice to victory.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@cvanwey , I hope you don't mind me dropping in - these points just jumped out at me. Andrewn, I hope you don't mind me joining in to answer.

Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Indians, Chinese etc had their own classics. The OT was for Israel.

That doesn't make sense. Yes, they all had their own beliefs. And, if Christianity is true, they were wrong. Completely and utterly wrong.

Christianity never suggested that all people should give up all their possessions and become monks.

You sound exactly like the young man in the Bible. He went away sadly when Jesus told him to give all he had to the poor. I don't blame him, or you. I would have been sad too.

Every person has his own faith and will be judged according to his actions.

That is a complete non-answer to @cvanwey 's point: slave-owners justified their actions by the Bible.
In fact, I'll go further - slave owners justified their actions by the Bible, and they were right. The Bible clearly does endorse slavery, in both the Old and New Testaments.