- Nov 13, 2017
- 12,212
- 12,468
- Country
- Romania
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't know? It's a bit of a big question. How would that work? Would we still be human?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ok, then god could have created us in the afterlife to begin with and sin would have been eliminated. Or is this not a power god has?
God is planning an afterlife for believers correct? So whatever afterlife he has planned would be what it is like. All I am saying is that begin creation at that point avoiding all the pain and suffering now and include everyone in the afterlife. No one would be excluded.I don't know? It's a bit of a big question. How would that work? Would we still be human?
That seems a bit myopic. There are many people in this world starving, being exploited, enslaved, raped, beaten everyday, tortured. Many would rather kill themselves than continue living.Well yes I suppose one solution to problems in the ancient world or modern world would be not to have any world at all. Life doesn't seem all that bad to me, a lot of bad things happen but a lot of good things do also.
My plan is simply whatever God has planned for the afterlife start creation there. Include everyone in heaven, people would not suffer or sin against each other or god. Isn't that what heaven is supposed to be like? Just move the afterlife up to include all people. Seems simple to me. It would be the exact same experience without all this suffering on earth.If your idea is that everything should have been done completely differently from the start then it would be interesting to hear what your plan would be in more detail, just out of curiosity.
He said murder was bad but people did not listen and did it anyway. Do you think it was ever moral to forcibly enslave another human being as property?You are applying your own views and definitions to the past. I have no idea what it was like back then. If God said slavery was bad would people have listened? Maybe he could see that regardless of his word we were going to do it anyway. Idk.
It was not abolished by God. Please show me where God said slavery should not be done.No I don't approve of lazy people owning another. Most people didn't, that's why it was abolished.
Many would rather kill themselves than continue living.
My plan is simply whatever God has planned for the afterlife start creation there. Include everyone in heaven, people would not suffer or sin against each other or god. Isn't that what heaven is supposed to be like? Just move the afterlife up to include all people. Seems simple to me. It would be the exact same experience without all this suffering on earth.
800,000 people commit suicide each year in the world.Where did you get that bit of data from?
You're the one who's refusing to engage the issue, and I can only assume it's because the evidence that God is in favour of slavery is so clear that you are unwilling to engage with it.Come on you made an actual point in one post, don't go off again into lala land.
Did you actually read them? If you had, you would have noticed that he showed exactly where his arguments were in the Bible, citing chapter and verse to back up his answers. At the end of this post, I shall be happy to give you examples, but I really would encourage you to read the excerpts from his sermon.You presented Warren's arguments and claim they are in the bible - you can go through his claims one at a time then and show me where they are in the bible.
If you were to read the sermon I posted - and at this point, I have to assume that you have not done so - you will see that it lays out a clear case for the Bible proving God's approval of slavery.Then you could address the other points you have ignored in an equally coherent way.
I'm afraid that is quite incorrect; and at the end of this post, I shall show you why. Although, as I said, I wouldn't have to if you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, as he already showed overwhelmingly that the Bible does indeed approve of slavery, contrary to what you seem to think.The bible describes the practice of slavery as was common at the time, it neither approves or disapproves.
All you're showing is that you're not familiar with what the Bible says. Before entering a debate of this nature, you should at least have a passing familiarity with it.Slavery was a given, the rules are about how people should behave towards their slaves.
Why on earth do you imagine I "need" to do that? The only reason I can imagine you'd say that is as a red herring to divert the conversation so you can avoid addressing the issues.To have any kind of argument to make you need to demonstrate how a cohesive, functioning society in the 2-3rd Millennium BC would have been possible without some form of slavery, how it would have been formed and maintained over many centuries, how those people who lived in bondage to others might have been able to fend for themselves otherwise and so on.
I think this is breaking the forum rules about being polite. Engage with the arguments, please, not personal remarks.No short cuts and excuses allowed, you are an adult after all so please think like one.
Again: did you actually read what he said? Warren backs up all of his points with clear references to the Bible.Yes, you claim that Warren's views are in the bible. He makes several references to specific things he says are in the bible, he's your 'witness', it should be a simple matter for you to identify the passages he claims are in the bible and present them here.
This is a quite inadequate response. Presented with evidence that you're wrong - ie, that the Bible does mean "slaves" in many of the cases in which it refers to "servants" - all you're going to do is hand-wave it away and say, "Well, who knows?"Neither your nor I read ancient Greek, if you want to look into that you'll find that there are almost always differing opinions on what this or that term means.
Why do you think I'll ignore it? Paul returned a runaway slave to his master. Yes, he entreated his master to free him, but had no guarantees that he would. For all Paul knew, he was sending Onesimus to his death. Hardly evidence that Paul, God or Christianity is anti-slavery. In fact, rather the opposite. He asked Onesimus's master to free him because Onesimus was now a Christian and a friend, not because he was opposed to slavery. There's no evidence that Paul, or anyone in the Bible including Jesus, actually saw slavery as a bad thing.Here's the bit you're going to ignore - Christians are called to behave as Christ did, Paul argues this point as delicately as he can over Onesimus, a runaway slave he sheltered for a period of time, recognising that dedicating himself to a slave revolt would go against his broader calling
I am not randomly making things up. I answered the question many times.I'm not seeing how just randomly making things up adds up to an argument, unless you are just sharing your ideas for some other reason.
You certainly did. You and I are making the same point: if God had actually been as opposed to slavery, as any morally decent person is today, then He would have condemned it. As you said:I am not randomly making things up. I answered the question many times.
Exactly. @Tom 1 seems to think that God was opposed to slavery, but couldn't do anything to stop it. This, of course, is nonsense, as people could clearly see in 1861! As Pastor Warren said:He said murder was bad but people did not listen and did it anyway. Do you think it was ever moral to forcibly enslave another human being as property?
Yes, @Tom 1 , please do show where God condemns slavery.It was not abolished by God. Please show me where God said slavery should not be done.
I am not randomly making things up. I answered the question many times.
800,000 people commit suicide each year in the world.
You're the one who's refusing to engage the issue, and I can only assume it's because the evidence that God is in favour of slavery is so clear that you are unwilling to engage with it.
Did you actually read them? If you had, you would have noticed that he showed exactly where his arguments were in the Bible, citing chapter and verse to back up his answers. At the end of this post, I shall be happy to give you examples, but I really would encourage you to read the excerpts from his sermon.
If you were to read the sermon I posted - and at this point, I have to assume that you have not done so - you will see that it lays out a clear case for the Bible proving God's approval of slavery.
I'm afraid that is quite incorrect; and at the end of this post, I shall show you why. Although, as I said, I wouldn't have to if you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, as he already showed overwhelmingly that the Bible does indeed approve of slavery, contrary to what you seem to think.
All you're showing is that you're not familiar with what the Bible says. Before entering a debate of this nature, you should at least have a passing familiarity with it.
Why on earth do you imagine I "need" to do that? The only reason I can imagine you'd say that is as a red herring to divert the conversation so you can avoid addressing the issues.
In fact, all I need to do to win the argument is point out how God is in favour of slavery. As in, actively promotes and encourages it, and considers it to be a good thing. If you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, you would have seen that he has done this already, in a compelling and convincing manner that you have, so far, not even tried to rebut.
I think this is breaking the forum rules about being polite. Engage with the arguments, please, not personal remarks.
Again: did you actually read what he said? Warren backs up all of his points with clear references to the Bible.
This is a quite inadequate response. Presented with evidence that you're wrong - ie, that the Bible does mean "slaves" in many of the cases in which it refers to "servants" - all you're going to do is hand-wave it away and say, "Well, who knows?"
Not good enough, I'm afraid. The Bible is talking about slaves. If it were talking about servants, it wouldn't tell you to beat them mercilessly and to to keep them and their children your property forever.
Why do you think I'll ignore it? Paul returned a runaway slave to his master. Yes, he entreated his master to free him, but had no guarantees that he would. For all Paul knew, he was sending Onesimus to his death. Hardly evidence that Paul, God or Christianity is anti-slavery. In fact, rather the opposite. He asked Onesimus's master to free him because Onesimus was now a Christian and a friend, not because he was opposed to slavery. There's no evidence that Paul, or anyone in the Bible including Jesus, actually saw slavery as a bad thing.
Now, let's get back to the key point: is the Bible pro-slavery, or is it not? I contend that it is, and will back up what I am saying. If you disagree, let's see your arguments.
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:
Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
So we see, the Bible gives clear directions on how to keep a slave with you forever, by holding his family hostage.
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Apparently the Bible is quite okay with you beating a slave to within an inch of his or her life. Just don't actually kill him.
Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10:
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
If a child is born to a slave, that child is born into slavery.
Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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.
See? God is just fine with people buying slaves. He tells them how to enslave others.
Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Slave rebellion? Not a Christian idea at all. If you're a slave, it is your Christian duty to obey your master.
If you're really sincere in wanting to find the truth, you will engage with the verses I've shown. If you don't want to find the truth, you'll try to dodge them, or ignore them, or divert the conversation away from what the Bible says about slavery.
.Exactly. @Tom 1 seems to think that God was opposed to slavery, but couldn't do anything to stop it.
You're the one who's refusing to engage the issue, and I can only assume it's because the evidence that God is in favour of slavery is so clear that you are unwilling to engage with it.
Did you actually read them? If you had, you would have noticed that he showed exactly where his arguments were in the Bible, citing chapter and verse to back up his answers. At the end of this post, I shall be happy to give you examples, but I really would encourage you to read the excerpts from his sermon.
If you were to read the sermon I posted - and at this point, I have to assume that you have not done so - you will see that it lays out a clear case for the Bible proving God's approval of slavery.
I'm afraid that is quite incorrect; and at the end of this post, I shall show you why. Although, as I said, I wouldn't have to if you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, as he already showed overwhelmingly that the Bible does indeed approve of slavery, contrary to what you seem to think.
All you're showing is that you're not familiar with what the Bible says. Before entering a debate of this nature, you should at least have a passing familiarity with it.
Why on earth do you imagine I "need" to do that? The only reason I can imagine you'd say that is as a red herring to divert the conversation so you can avoid addressing the issues.
In fact, all I need to do to win the argument is point out how God is in favour of slavery. As in, actively promotes and encourages it, and considers it to be a good thing. If you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, you would have seen that he has done this already, in a compelling and convincing manner that you have, so far, not even tried to rebut.
I think this is breaking the forum rules about being polite. Engage with the arguments, please, not personal remarks.
Again: did you actually read what he said? Warren backs up all of his points with clear references to the Bible.
This is a quite inadequate response. Presented with evidence that you're wrong - ie, that the Bible does mean "slaves" in many of the cases in which it refers to "servants" - all you're going to do is hand-wave it away and say, "Well, who knows?"
Not good enough, I'm afraid. The Bible is talking about slaves. If it were talking about servants, it wouldn't tell you to beat them mercilessly and to to keep them and their children your property forever.
Why do you think I'll ignore it? Paul returned a runaway slave to his master. Yes, he entreated his master to free him, but had no guarantees that he would. For all Paul knew, he was sending Onesimus to his death. Hardly evidence that Paul, God or Christianity is anti-slavery. In fact, rather the opposite. He asked Onesimus's master to free him because Onesimus was now a Christian and a friend, not because he was opposed to slavery. There's no evidence that Paul, or anyone in the Bible including Jesus, actually saw slavery as a bad thing.
Now, let's get back to the key point: is the Bible pro-slavery, or is it not? I contend that it is, and will back up what I am saying. If you disagree, let's see your arguments.
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 1:
Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,' then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.
So we see, the Bible gives clear directions on how to keep a slave with you forever, by holding his family hostage.
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Apparently the Bible is quite okay with you beating a slave to within an inch of his or her life. Just don't actually kill him.
Leviticus Chapter 22, verse 10:
No one outside a priest's family may eat the sacred offering, nor may the guest of a priest or his hired worker eat it. But if a priest buys a slave with money, or if a slave is born in his household, that slave may eat his food.
If a child is born to a slave, that child is born into slavery.
Leviticus Chapter 25, verse 44:
Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 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. 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.
See? God is just fine with people buying slaves. He tells them how to enslave others.
Colossians, chapter 3, verse 22:
Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, work heartily...
Titus, chapter 2 verse 9:
Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity.
Slave rebellion? Not a Christian idea at all. If you're a slave, it is your Christian duty to obey your master.
If you're really sincere in wanting to find the truth, you will engage with the verses I've shown. If you don't want to find the truth, you'll try to dodge them, or ignore them, or divert the conversation away from what the Bible says about slavery.
Why on earth do you imagine I "need" to do that? The only reason I can imagine you'd say that is as a red herring to divert the conversation so you can avoid addressing the issues.
This is a quite inadequate response. Presented with evidence that you're wrong - ie, that the Bible does mean "slaves" in many of the cases in which it refers to "servants" - all you're going to do is hand-wave it away and say, "Well, who knows?"
Not good enough, I'm afraid. The Bible is talking about slaves. If it were talking about servants, it wouldn't tell you to beat them mercilessly and to to keep them and their children your property forever.
Warren backs up all of his points with clear references to the Bible.
If you had read Pastor Warren's sermon, you would have seen that he has done this already, in a compelling and convincing manner that you have, so far, not even tried to rebut.
You say that it's "so convincing" sarcastically. But it looks pretty empty if you can't back it up. Because in fact, I think Pastor Warren does indeed make a very convincing case for the Bible and God being pro-slavery. If you think I'm wrong, why don't you just point out his errors for me?
Suuuuurreee. Soooo convincing. Convincing in the way 2+2=5 would be to someone who didn’t know what numbers are. As you don’t seem able to explain why you find good old Pastor Warren’s argument so convincing, and you’ve taken to quoting sections of the Mosaic law, you can start with your views on the differences between God’s law and Mosaic law. If you’re not sure what those are I’d suggest Mainmonides and Philo to get you acquainted, then you can come back and explain why you think the Mosaic and related laws were not of their time. No dishonest selective quoting please, speak from your understanding of the division of laws and what that means in regard to your ‘god wrote it’ ideas.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?