Are you a liar?

[Redemptionsong]

Messianic Jews are a fringe subset. Not significant. You could say they are just another sect of an already crowded collection of Christians whose beliefs disagree.


the Old Testament is theirs, and Christians abducted it and changed the meaning of many of its words and stories. It's absurd that Christians interpret the OT in a way that differs from Jews when it is THEIR book.


That's funny, with 44,000 sects of Christianity I'd say they are plenty confused WITH the NT. One of the reasons I'm an atheist was watching my Catholic and Baptist families argue and go after each other at holiday dinners. WOW, even as a child i was smart enough to see how they behaved through their religious belief was contrary to what I was being taught in Sunday school. I could see there was something fatally wrong with this religion.


And this means what? That they are devoted to their religious belief? Let's note that these Jews disagree with you about Jesus, so I'm not sure the wisdom of using them as an authority in religion. I should listen to them about how much your religious interpretation is in error. Yes?


Not according to the Jews.


Assuming a Jesus existed, he would have been Jewish. But that still doesn't make the Gospel true. Let us know when they finish their assessment.


That is what a true believer like Paul would say. The whole "end times" notion is pretty dubious, much of it driven by Revelations, which scholars consider to be describing the time of Nero.


Then it sounds as if your interpretation is that many, if not the majority, of Christians have been deceived. Why would God do that instead of offering a more coherent and clear doctrine? Not very loving.


I find more conservative believers to have more corrupt fruit. The more liberal believers tend to mirror Jesus vastly more. When I was a kid I worked at my grandmothers food kitchen at her church. They fed homeless and hungry people twice a week, which is all the church could afford to do. I felt shame because my family was pretty well off and I had no idea there were families that needed this good service. The ladies that did all this at the church never asked anyone to pray, never brought up religion, or salvation, or anything. They did their duty as human beings, and this is what Jesus taught his followers to do. I see the Swaggarts, the Bakers, the Falwells, the Grahams, all the greedy takers who press government and society to be intolerant their their fellow citizens who don't meet some absurd ideal. They are most definitely rotten fruit. Why they don't see it, I don't know. Greed does something toxic to the spirit.

All the first believers in Jesus, the disciples of Jesus, were Jews living in either Galilee or Judea. The scriptures state clearly that Jesus 'came to his own'.

This Jewish base of belief expanded on the day of Pentecost when 3000 souls accepted Jesus as Christ. These were Jews from across the region who had come to Jerusalem to celebrate a pilgrim festival, Shav'uot.

There is no question that it was Jews who took the Gospel to the Gentiles. These were Jews who based their beliefs on the Tanakh. Let's be clear, there were no NT books in the initial stages of evangelism.

The rejection of Jesus by the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem was the point at which Judaism and Christianity went their separate ways. And, yes, from that point it was Gentiles who enthusiastically received the Gospel.

I see your criticism of Christians as based on judgmentalism. I see, for example, you criticise the Graham family, whilst overlooking the great work that Billy did as an evangelist. We can all find fault in others if we look hard enough, but the scriptures make it clear that God judges the heart. What we cannot know is what a person would have been like had they not repented and believed!

According to Christian belief only God is good. Jesus Christ was perfectly good because he was 'the image of God'. A believer is 'born again' and then has to begin a journey of growth. At no point on that journey from 'sinner to saint' is the victory won, for the battle between flesh and spirit is on-going until the day of salvation.

It doesn't really matter how many Christian denominations there are, so long as the truth of Christ is recognised. What is this basic truth? It's that all men are sinners, and that sin brings death, whilst God's righteousness (Christ) brings life.

The question is how to receive God's righteousness. I believe, and am happy to show from scripture, that this is accomplished through faith.

 

[Elihoenai]

The whole point being made by Paul is that we are all wretched liars until we receive Christ by grace!

The only one pointing a finger is God.

Romans 11:5-6

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.


Do affirm that before Grace is received you must do Works? Do you affirm that you must Seek and Find Grace?

 

[Redemptionsong]

This tale wasn't written till c. 90 CE, sixty years / two or three generations after the traditional date of the crucifixion, so whether it was historical or just a story, it had all that time to be polished. And if it's roughly accurate, so what? That doesn't make Jesus a Jewish messiah.
So the Jewish messiah, you say, is himself the cause of the greatest and most sustained and most murderous and rapacious antisemitism?

Christian antisemitism is fine with you because of something Moses (if indeed there was an historical Moses at all) is said to have said? Christianity exists to persecute and murder Jewish people?

God sent the Jewish people a messiah [he] knew they wouldn't recognize, set them a test [he] knew they must fail, you say?

And as a result the Jews have deserved the Christian pogroms, ghettos, gas chambers, for not recognizing your hero as their "king", in your view? Hitler nailed it, you think?

I think that's an inhuman view, to be rejected instantly and outright.

And by the way, the Jews never turned from their God.

Why, for example, would the Jews, having worshiped their God directly in prayer for more than a millennium, suddenly need an intermediary? That's an idea from gnosticism, but only Paul and the author of John were gnostics in the NT.

It was and is the Christians who rejected the Jewish God and indeed in the fourth century CE invented the "Triune God" in order to elevate Jesus to God status, despite every version of Jesus in the NT denying he's God, and never once claiming to be God. If, as you say, Jesus was God all along, then his ministry was one long deceit, a lie fully lived. And Jesus prayed to himself in the garden, and the Jesuses of Mark and of Matthew said on the cross, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?"

Sheesh.

As for "the stem of Jesse", nope, the Jewish priesthood, the leaders of the Jews, will tell you who's a Jewish messiah and who's not a messiah.

Your dating of books of the NT bears no relation to the internal integrity of the scriptures and was not even considered plausible until the humanist scholars of 'higher criticism' demonstrated their scepticism with the idea of prophecy. For this is essentially the stumbling block for scholars without a belief in an omniscient God. They cannot believe that prophecy allows for the foretelling of events.

As regards the NT, the Jewish wars, and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, is a key historical event. It cannot go unnoticed because of its impact on the Jews and on the Christian movement. Yet, this key event is not mentioned in Luke's chronological account in the book of Acts! Still, you have the cheek to claim that Acts was not written until 20 years after the destruction of the temple!

What nonsense.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Romans 11:5-6

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.


Do affirm that before Grace is received you must do Works? Do you affirm that you must Seek and Find Grace?

Yes, l believe we do our own works of righteousness, as under the law, before we receive the righteousness of God (grace) through faith.

 

[blü 2]

Your dating of books of the NT bears no relation to the internal integrity of the scriptures and was not even considered plausible until the humanist scholars of 'higher criticism' demonstrated their scepticism with the idea of prophecy.

To be clear, I'm skeptical too ─ although it can have its uses. For example, at Mark 13:2, Mark's Jesus 'prophecies' the destruction of Jerusalem, part of the evidence that dates Mark to after 70 CE.

For this is essentially the stumbling block for scholars without a belief in an omniscient God. They cannot believe that prophecy allows for the foretelling of events.

Produce a prophet capable of convincing a skeptical but impartial onlooker that he or she can foretell the future. Or, going the other way, I assume you don't have regular sessions with your agent in the psychics industry?

As regards the NT, the Jewish wars, and the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, is a key historical event. It cannot go unnoticed because of its impact on the Jews and on Christian movement. Yet, this key event is not mentioned in Luke's chronological account in the book of Acts! Still, you have the cheek to claim that Acts was not written until 20 years after the destruction of the temple!

I look at the evidence. You're no doubt aware that historical method is secular, doesn't accept magic (the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality), and dates things based as far as possible on facts.

The difference between faith and facts is that a fact, being an accurate statement about a real state of affairs, is capable of being objectively true. That's why science can put rovers on Mars and devise Covid vaccines and religion as such can't. Just as relevantly, that's why there are presently tens of thousands of versions of religion in the world, and goodness knows how many there have been in the past.

Now, I understood you to say that the Jews have deserved all the Christian mistreatment they've received over the last two millennia, the murders, persecutions, pogroms, ghettos, gas chambers, because God sent them a messiah [he] necessarily knew they wouldn't recognize.

Do you wish to amend that in any way?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Produce a prophet capable of convincing a skeptical but impartial onlooker that he or she can foretell the future. Or, going the other way, I assume you don't have regular sessions with your agent in the psychics industry?

The whole essence and basis of the beliefs of Jews and Christians is prophecy. Moses was believed to be a prophet, and tradition attributes the first five books of the Tanakh to Moses.

If Moses was not a prophet, then he was a liar. He claimed to have heard the voice of God, and witnessed his presence. Moses claimed that the Law was a covenant made with God.

Moses tells of a coming prophet [Deut.18:15], and Jesus claims that Moses spoke of his coming [Luke 24:27]. So by denying Moses as a prophet, one is also denying that Jesus is the Christ.

These are the people John calls 'liars', because they reject the Word of God and continue in their sin.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Now, I understood you to say that the Jews have deserved all the Christian mistreatment they've received over the last two millennia, the murders, persecutions, pogroms, ghettos, gas chambers, because God sent them a messiah [he] necessarily knew they wouldn't recognize.

Firstly, anti-semitism was not 'Christian' mistreatment. It was mistreatment by an assortment of people who walked by the flesh.

Secondly, as shown from scripture, Jewish blessings and cursings are all dependent on God. You cannot see this because you have no belief in God, but Jews know that their lives are under a covenant. Moses made it abundantly clear that disobedience would result in cursings.

An honest assessment of Jewish practices before the Babylonian exile will show God's exasperation with his people; and the same was true when the destruction of Jerusalem occurred under the Romans. Israel is only banished from its land when God is displeased.

 

[F1fan]

Do you agree with the teaching in Romans 3:4?

This is the text:

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.​

I'm not convinced any gods exist, but I'm not sure what this text is supposed to be teaching anyone. It looks to be the King James, middle English wording which is difficult to cobble together when operating with modern English.

So perhaps you can comment on what this text is supposed to teach.

 

[F1fan]

Firstly, anti-semitism was not 'Christian' mistreatment. It was mistreatment by an assortment of people who walked by the flesh.

And you made a similar defense of Christianity in that some believers opposed slavery.

But what we are questioning is why slavery in Africa and English colonies (among other Christian colonial powers) developed a system of slavery at all. How did anti-Semitism arise at all in Europe, notably in the 19th and 20th centuries? Even the USA had hostility against the Jews in the 20th century, as the tragic example of the St. Louis demonstrates:

A Ship of Jewish Refugees Was Refused US Landing in 1939. This Was Their Fate

You are hanging your Christian hat on the moral responses to these tragedies and ignoring that Christians brought about and allowed these tragedies in the first place. You can't point to a Christian moral win when Christians caused the moral failure in the first place.

All these examples tech us is that Christian societies are influenced by bigotry despite the influence of Christianity. The moral progress comes by arguing REASONED morals, REASONED equality, REASONED ethics, not religion. The basis for these reasoned position is better explained by the thinking from the Enlightenment, not the two thousand years of Christian influence. Remember the Enlightenment was largely a response to the cruelty, inhumanity, intolerance, and hypocrisy of Christian influence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How would you summarise the Gospel message?

Submit to and obey what is said to be the will of God or face the music. You'd likely disagree, but the essential message of Christianity is that you're hellbound unless you quit sinning and ask for forgiveness. Sin is defined as disobeying God's will. It's very simple - obey the rules or burn. Dressing it up with words like grace doesn't make it any prettier.

Calling this love doesn't work, either. What's called God's love is like the "love" of an abusive significant other. "I love you. Why do you make me hurt you? Why won't you just obey me?" We would call this gaslighting if a human being did it.

Deuteronomy 28:1. 'And it shall come to pass if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which l command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth:' There we have the promise of blessing upon the obedient. But what of disobedience?

There you go. Did you understand this scripture? I did. It confirms my answer above. You're describing extortion, but you'll never see it that way. Why? You won't allow yourself to.

From what you have written in the previous post, it strikes me that you do not understand the Gospel at all!

I'd say the same to you. I think I just did say that to you above.

The whole point being made by Paul is that we are all wretched liars until we receive Christ by grace!

Yes. There is more to Christianity than the central message, obey or burn. There is also that you are an unworthy worm. This is alien to a humanist, who sees the potential for dignity and nobility in people, and wants to empower them to live authentic, autonomous, self-actualized lives.

Did you not also know that Jesus fulfils the law?

That's a category error and without meaning. Laws cannot be fulfilled. They can be enacted, obeyed, flouted, amended, enforced, etc.., but some verbs have no meaning when attached to law, like fulfill. Promises are fulfilled. Dreams are fulfilled. But not laws. Try to fulfill the speeding laws. The fulfilled the law trope is a semantic device to not have to say invalidated the law.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The God of Israel, the one true God, made short work of the Egyptian gods. That much is true.

This is false. Truth is unrelated to faith, which is all you have to make these claims. Truth is tied to empiricism, to physical evidence. Nothing can be said to be correct that cannot be demonstrated to be correct. The evidence contradicts pretty much the entire book of Exodus.

The issue of slavery is used by some to criticise the God of the Bible, but it's a shallow argument.

No, it's not. The deity depicted in the Christian Bible fails to meet humanist ethical standards, which are based in utilitarian ethics and the Golden Rule. Humanists find much lacking in Christian ethics, including the failure to notice that slavery is immoral. That idea comes from the rational ethics of humanism, not the Bible or its received moral system. It's basic Golden Rule stuff, a pillar in humanist ethics, but only given lip service in Christianity.

The Bible does not encourage the ownership of slaves.

Not good enough. It condones it by not expressly condemning it.

The issue of slavery is complex and reaches far back in history. We know that at one time it was common practice to make slaves of prisoners of war. This was seen as a humanitarian alternative to slaughtering your captives.

Not by a humanist, who would consider freeing and supporting such people humanitarian. These values are not ours.

False gods give false hope, and ultimately they prove powerless.

That's correct.

I don't suppose that you see the irony of making this comment. I see this almost daily on the sites that chronicle the lives and deaths of the willfully unvaccinated, usually beginning with their Facebook antivax memes and ending with a GoFundMe. In between, we see the pleas for prayer that go unanswered:

Spoiler: prayers unanswered

This is from a pastor, two weeks before dying of Covid:

Here's another:

And more:

I could provide several dozen more of these. The point is, this is what false hope in and the powerlessness of a deity looks like. And none of the survivors of these people change their mind about the power of prayer. Why? Because evidence doesn't matter to them.

 

[Redemptionsong]

And you made a similar defense of Christianity in that some believers opposed slavery.

But what we are questioning is why slavery in Africa and English colonies (among other Christian colonial powers) developed a system of slavery at all. How did anti-Semitism arise at all in Europe, notably in the 19th and 20th centuries? Even the USA had hostility against the Jews in the 20th century, as the tragic example of the St. Louis demonstrates:

A Ship of Jewish Refugees Was Refused US Landing in 1939. This Was Their Fate

You are hanging your Christian hat on the moral responses to these tragedies and ignoring that Christians brought about and allowed these tragedies in the first place. You can't point to a Christian moral win when Christians caused the moral failure in the first place.

All these examples tech us is that Christian societies are influenced by bigotry despite the influence of Christianity. The moral progress comes by arguing REASONED morals, REASONED equality, REASONED ethics, not religion. The basis for these reasoned position is better explained by the thinking from the Enlightenment, not the two thousand years of Christian influence. Remember the Enlightenment was largely a response to the cruelty, inhumanity, intolerance, and hypocrisy of Christian influence.

You are making a habit of talking in generalisations about 'Christians', as if you know who in any given society has pledged their life to following Christ. I don't happen to believe that outward appearance tells us much, and l'm of the understanding that Jesus Christ is not a 'religion'.

Reason happens to be used by people of faith, and some of the greatest scientists have also been believers in God.

Jesus knew that there was more to life than outward appearances. He taught that when it comes to morality man was corrupt. Why? Because the Spirit that animated human beings was 'out of touch' with its Creator.

Here's an extract that deserves our attention:
Matthew 7:16-18. 'Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of [from] thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit'.

The labels that people carry with them are not important. Jesus didn't care about labels or outward appearances. He always read the heart, and the heart is the dwelling place of the spirit. If your heart is corrupt, its the same as saying you do not have a clean spirit. If your heart is good, its the same as saying you have the Spirit of God.

Jesus came to give people a clean Spirit, so that their fruit might be good fruit.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Submit to and obey what is said to be the will of God or face the music. You'd likely disagree, but the essential message of Christianity is that you're hellbound unless you quit sinning and ask for forgiveness. Sin is defined as disobeying God's will. It's very simple - obey the rules or burn. Dressing it up with words like grace doesn't make it any prettier.

Calling this love doesn't work, either. What's called God's love is like the "love" of an abusive significant other. "I love you. Why do you make me hurt you? Why won't you just obey me?" We would call this gaslighting if a human being did it.



There you go. Did you understand this scripture? I did. It confirms my answer above. You're describing extortion, but you'll never see it that way. Why? You won't allow yourself to.



I'd say the same to you. I think I just did say that to you above.



Yes. There is more to Christianity than the central message, obey or burn. There is also that you are an unworthy worm. This is alien to a humanist, who sees the potential for dignity and nobility in people, and wants to empower them to live authentic, autonomous, self-actualized lives.



That's a category error and without meaning. Laws cannot be fulfilled. They can be enacted, obeyed, flouted, amended, enforced, etc.., but some verbs have no meaning when attached to law, like fulfill. Promises are fulfilled. Dreams are fulfilled. But not laws. Try to fulfill the speeding laws. The fulfilled the law trope is a semantic device to not have to say invalidated the law.

An interesting response because whilst l asked you to summarise the Gospel, you have answered by telling me about what is expected under the law.

The covenant of law, as delivered by Moses to Israel, was an agreement (covenant) based on following commandments, and being blessed for doing so. The 'down side' of the law came as the result of disobedience, because the consequences of disobedience were severe. God did not provide a huge 'grey area' between life and death! It was a clearly defined line because God wanted his children to be holy, and in his likeness.

Righteousness under the law involves fulfilling [doing] all that is required under the law. For men, who observe the outward 'facts' of life but don't know the workings of a human heart, it's possible to appear righteous and holy.

God's righteousness is a righteousness of Spirit; only God knows the working of a man's heart, because it's spiritual and unseen.

Jesus, having the Spirit of the Father (God) was able to discern the working of a man's heart, and this made him different from other men. He also confirmed his goodness by doing everything required by the law. In fact, he demonstrated the hardest thing of all, dying for his friends.

Yet, even after dying and being resurrected, we still haven't completed the Gospel story. The Good News is not that a man died, but that in being resurrected he was able to fulfil his promise of offering new life. This new life is the free gift (grace) of Holy Spirit. Without it you cannot be a 'good' tree! [see quote from Matt. provided to F1fan]

The Gospel of grace means that sinners are reliant on God for salvation. We cannot save ourselves.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As it says in Romans, even if the whole world were to deny God and not believe in Christ, the truth would still reside in God. What you do not seem to understand is that a sinner is a liar!

Are you a sinner?

I'm sorry that your mind seems so shut that you can't see the obvious.

I can only repeat myself....

If someone makes a claim and they truly believe said claim, regardless of them being right or wrong, then they aren't telling a lie.

Period.

A lie is when you say something with the intention to deceive, when you know that what you say isn't true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The issue of slavery is used by some to criticise the God of the Bible, but it's a shallow argument. Did you not know that the Hebrews, God's chosen, were slaves in Egypt?

Massive enslavement of hebrews / israelites in ancient Egypt, only occurs in the OT myth. Not in reality. It doesn't show up in any extra-biblical sources. It doesn't show up in archeology.

This is usually an indication that the myths are just that: myths.

Do you not know that every year there is a celebration of freedom from slavery at Pesach? Who do you think it was that freed the Hebrews from slavery?

A character in a book. Because in reality, there were no hebrew slaves in egypt to free.

Why would God free his people from slavery if he thought slavery was a good thing?

Did you not also know that Jesus fulfils the law? He beings the law to fulfilment in the Spirit. This means that he offers people an even better freedom than freedom from external chains. He offers to free people from their inner prisons.

Did you know that you can be a slave and still be free from sin? Did you know that a lifetime of slavery on earth cannot prevent an eternal life of freedom?

None of this, btw, addresses the point raised in the post you are responding to.
That point being that the OT explicitly condones slavery and even sets out rules on who you can enslave, how to purchase slaves, how slaves are like property that can be inherited by off spring, how they can be beaten, etc.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

An interesting response because whilst l asked you to summarise the Gospel, you have answered by telling me about what is expected under the law.

I summarized the message of the Gospel. My answer was, "Submit to and obey what is said to be the will of God or face the music. You'd likely disagree, but the essential message of Christianity is that you're hellbound unless you quit sinning and ask for forgiveness. Sin is defined as disobeying God's will. It's very simple - obey the rules or burn. Dressing it up with words like grace doesn't make it any prettier."

That is the message of the New Testament - obey or suffer. You didn't rebut it. Mere dissent without providing a counterargument is not a rebuttal.

The covenant of law, as delivered by Moses to Israel, was an agreement (covenant) based on following commandments, and being blessed for doing so. The 'down side' of the law came as the result of disobedience, because the consequences of disobedience were severe. God did not provide a huge 'grey area' between life and death! It was a clearly defined line because God wanted his children to be holy, and in his likeness.

Righteousness under the law involves fulfilling [doing] all that is required under the law. For men, who observe the outward 'facts' of life but don't know the workings of a human heart, it's possible to appear righteous and holy.

God's righteousness is a righteousness of Spirit; only God knows the working of a man's heart, because it's spiritual and unseen.

Jesus, having the Spirit of the Father (God) was able to discern the working of a man's heart, and this made him different from other men. He also confirmed his goodness by doing everything required by the law. In fact, he demonstrated the hardest thing of all, dying for his friends.

Yet, even after dying and being resurrected, we still haven't completed the Gospel story. The Good News is not that a man died, but that in being resurrected he was able to fulfil his promise of offering new life. This new life is the free gift (grace) of Holy Spirit. Without it you cannot be a 'good' tree! [see quote from Matt. provided to F1fan]

The Gospel of grace means that sinners are reliant on God for salvation. We cannot save ourselves.

This is also not rebuttal. It doesn't negate my argument. You make it yourself in your last paragraph, albeit substituting flowery language like sinners for those who don't comply and not saving oneself for being punished. Submit or else.

The purpose of this religion is to compel compliance using both its carrot (the promise of heaven for the obedient) and its stick (the threat of hell for the rest). What do you suppose the value of the Sermon on the Mount was to Constantine, and why he made Christianity his state religion? It's instructions to the exploited to stand down and accept the exploitation without rising up. Be meek. Be longsuffering. Turn the other cheek when smitten. If you are patient, your reward will come after death, when your station will be raised to that of an equal, when you will be rewarded for tolerating the exploitation as the will of God.

Like Constantine, Napoleon understood this as well:

• "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The Bible does not encourage the ownership of slaves.

It doesn't prohibit it either.
In fact, it regulates it. It treats it as the most normal thing in the world, like fishing or tending to cattle.
It treats it as a fact of life. As "normal". As not moral or immoral. But just a practice like any other.

Nowhere is it condemned. Ever.

If I were god, then "Thou shall not keep slaves" would have been one of the 10 commandments.
In fact, remove the first 4 (all of which hare only concerned with god's pettyness and jealousy anyway) and replace it with an anti-slavery commandment.

Then you'ld have 7 commandments which would be vastly superior to the 10 it currently has.

The bottom line, in any case, is that clearly this god of the bible doesn't have any moral issues with the practice of slavery. In fact, it even says literally to slaves that they should "obey their masters".
So it even quite literally tells the slave to not complain and just do as the master tells them and just accept that they are the "property" of the slave owner.

Which I would expect as a non-believer btw, since I expect such documents / religions to reflect the morals of the culture in which it is born. This is why slavery is treated as such and also why women are pretty much seen as second rate citizens. That's just how it was back then.

To me, such are evidence that the stories aren't true and that they are just the creations of men.

There have always been Christians who have objected to slavery, but where we find Christians involved in slavery we have to recognise that the life of faith is a life of growth and changing attitudes. Some have attempted to justify their slave ownership, whilst others have lived uneasily with a state of affairs they felt powerless to change.

There were some slave owners (in the Confederacy) who became Christians whilst owning slaves. In cases like this it was not possible to simply divorce an unbelieving partner and walk off the plantation! The practicalities of life ensured that the first concern was to improve the conditions of the slaves and to free those who had worked a specified number of years. Also, one had to consider what life as a freed slave would entail. For some slaves, freedom without the means to survive was worse than living under a benevolent 'master'.

The issue of slavery is complex and reaches far back in history. We know that at one time it was common practice to make slaves of prisoners of war. This was seen as a humanitarian alternative to slaughtering your captives.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that the OT explicitly allows, condones and regulates slavery. And that neither the OT or the NT forbids it or even only hints at "don't do it".

Let's not forget that you have raised this issue in an attempt to demonstrate that God somehow approves of slavery. The Bible, however, is clear that slavery is wrong.

I challenge you to quote the verse(s) where it explicitly says that slavery is wrong.

I won't be holding my breath, because I know it doesn't exist.

This applies firstly to physical slavery, but secondly, and more importantly, to the inner slavery of sin.

In the Bible, the OT highlights the outward man, whilst the NT tends to focus on the spiritual, or inner man. It becomes clear from the NT that all men are considered to be slaves, as all are sinners. It is God's design in Christ to bring freedom from sin, and, thereby, from slavery.

Your attempt at trying to change the topic to some kind of "poetic" or "philosophical" slavery (like when we metaphorically say that "people are slaves of money and greed") is just a slap in the face to all people that suffered from actual slavery.

You know... the practice of one human being considering another human being his private property which can be bought, sold and inherited by off spring.

Here is a small reminder example from the kind of stuff that the bible actually says on the topic in exodus 21:20:

When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I summarized the message of the Gospel. My answer was, "Submit to and obey what is said to be the will of God or face the music. You'd likely disagree, but the essential message of Christianity is that you're hellbound unless you quit sinning and ask for forgiveness. Sin is defined as disobeying God's will. It's very simple - obey the rules or burn. Dressing it up with words like grace doesn't make it any prettier."

That is the message of the New Testament - obey or suffer. You didn't rebut it. Mere dissent without providing a counterargument is not a rebuttal.



This is also not rebuttal. It doesn't negate my argument. You make it yourself in your last paragraph, albeit substituting flowery language like sinners for those who don't comply and not saving oneself for being punished. Submit or else.

The purpose of this religion is to compel compliance using both its carrot (the promise of heaven for the obedient) and its stick (the threat of hell for the rest). What do you suppose the value of the Sermon on the Mount was to Constantine, and why he made Christianity his state religion? It's instructions to the exploited to stand down and accept the exploitation without rising up. Be meek. Be longsuffering. Turn the other cheek when smitten. If you are patient, your reward will come after death, when your station will be raised to that of an equal, when you will be rewarded for tolerating the exploitation as the will of God.

Like Constantine, Napoleon understood this as well:

• "How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."

Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it. Justice is still required as a framework within which to offer mercy.

There is no such thing as a Christian state on earth. You cannot have the state offering mercy to offenders. The state has a responsibility to provide justice. It's down to individual believers to offer forgiveness, in as far as their faith allows.

The kind of religion that you refer to in your post is allied to the state. This means that it follows law, not grace.

The reason that Christians see their true home as heaven is that their first allegiance is to Christ. Christ, in heaven, is head of the Church. The head of the Church is not an earthly king or emperor.

When Constantine made Christianity the state religion he was placing his subjects under law. Law cannot save a man's soul. It is still an individual's responsibility to seek salvation 'with fear and trembling'. Salvation is by grace alone.

 

[blü 2]

The whole essence and basis of the beliefs of Jews and Christians is prophecy. Moses was believed to be a prophet, and tradition attributes the first five books of the Tanakh to Moses.

I agree with the historical method. Prophecy is magic and essentially not credible. However, its use in the politics of the Tanakh is interesting.

If Moses was not a prophet, then he was a liar. He claimed to have heard the voice of God, and witnessed his presence. Moses claimed that the Law was a covenant made with God.

First there has to be an historical Moses, and an Egyptian captivity. You may have noticed that archaeology in recent times has thrown doubt on both those claims; and indeed long beforehand doubts existed because of the total lack of evidence in Egyptian historical records and the failure to identify the story's pharaoh with any real pharaoh. And such episodes as Moses and Aaron turning rods into snakes and back, and the waters of the Nile into blood and back, only for pharaoh's magicians to match these tricks, and the seven plagues, is the very essence of folktale.

Moses tells of a coming prophet [Deut.18:15], and Jesus claims that Moses spoke of his coming [Luke 24:27].

If Jesus was a prophet, he wasn't a good one. Those promises in each of the synoptics that the Kingdom would be established on earth in the lifetime of Jesus' hearers was an unequivocal dud, for instance.

So by denying Moses as a prophet, one is also denying that Jesus is the Christ.

Yes ─ and without telling any lies at all.

These are the people John calls 'liars', because they reject the Word of God and continue in their sin.

As I said, that's how you sell snakeoil. Jesus was not in fact qualified to be a Jewish messiah, nor was he ever a leader of the Jewish people whether in governance, religion or war. The authors of the NT, none of whom had ever met an historical Jesus, were blatant in choosing passages from the NT which appealed to them as messianic "prophecy" and moving Jesus through them, from which I infer that the author of Mark didn't know much about Jesus' bio but was determined to provide one. The author of Matthew's "massacre of the innocents" to engineer Jesus "coming out of Egypt" to satisfy the "prophecy" and "fulfill" Hosea 11.1 is only one of many examples of pure fiction.

Firstly, anti-semitism was not 'Christian' mistreatment. It was mistreatment by an assortment of people who walked by the flesh.

You said yourself that the Jews got what they deserved, and no group in history has been more murderously oppressive towards them than Christians, even to this day.

Secondly, as shown from scripture, Jewish blessings and cursings are all dependent on God. You cannot see this because you have no belief in God, but Jews know that their lives are under a covenant. Moses made it abundantly clear that disobedience would result in cursings.

And Jesus was the agent of that curse, you say?

You haven't told me why God would send a messiah that [he] knew the Jews wouldn't recognize as a messiah. And then have the Christians torment [his] chosen people for two thousand years.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sin is defined as disobeying God's will. It's very simple - obey the rules or burn. Dressing it up with words like grace doesn't make it any prettier."

Can you stop sinning by your efforts? If you can then there is no need for a Saviour.

An honest answer lies with you.