• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Morality of the Old Testament

Ajax

Active Member
Actually, I think you've missed the entire point of the text.
I don't think I have actually. The text is from Christian Bible, that is why I asked if you agree with the translation.

Does God condemn slavery? No! Not only he allows it, but gives instructions of how to treat slaves. Are slaves his creatures, or is he only interested in the Jews and supposedly made thousands of miracles to save them from slavery?
I believe that a person should demonstrate a genuine effort to understand the societal context.
In any case, an omniscient and eternal God, who claims to be God of all people, can not be bound by societal and chronological context, otherwise he is a false God..
 
but gives instructions of how to treat slaves

Holy Wars were fought over the treatment of slaves.

Does your culture support the mistreatment of slaves?

That sounds like a good way to end up on the business end of a machete.

Not to mention ending up on the wrong side of history.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Your position would be stronger if examples from the original texts are included, agreed?
The following previously cited article extensively translated from Hebrew concerning dating Deborah.

 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Holy Wars were fought over the treatment of slaves.
No Holy wars were not fought over slavery. Wars over slavery like USA North versus South were over the moral issue of slavery among Christians, and some slave rebellions in the Americas. Holy wars are fought over differences of Religion. ie Jews, Christians, Protestants versus the Roman Church, and Muslims. Yes persecution pogroms, and ethnic cleansing are often motivated by religious differences.
 
No Holy wars were not fought over slavery. Wars over slavery like USA North versus South were over the moral issue of slavery among Christians, and some slave rebellions in the Americas. Holy wars are fought over differences of Religion. ie Jews, Christians, Protestants versus the Roman Church, and Muslims. Yes persecution pogroms, and ethnic cleansing are often motivated by religious differences.

Thank you for presenting your culture’s perspective on the topic.

What is holy for some cultures may not be holy for other cultures, as you so aptly demonstrate.

Is your culture presumptous enough to be an objective standard from which to judge western culture?

We seem to be back to two objective standards, again, both placing themselves in a position of privilege at the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell.
 
Last edited:

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
I don't think I have actually. The text is from Christian Bible, that is why I asked if you agree with the translation.

Does God condemn slavery? No! Not only he allows it, but gives instructions of how to treat slaves. Are slaves his creatures, or is he only interested in the Jews and supposedly made thousands of miracles to save them from slavery?

In any case, an omniscient and eternal God, who claims to be God of all people, can not be bound by societal and chronological context, otherwise he is a false God..
I'm currently in the early stages of a two phase road trip, each phase being a roughly 2000 mile round trip. Let me get back to this when I have a bit more time and access to my books.

Take care ...
 

jimb

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Like everyone I 'think both objectively and subjectively.

My academic references do not depend on my errors in grammar. Your failure to respond to the references reveals your avoidance of the facts and your emphasis on the fallacy of judgement based on your annal view of grammar.

Your premise that "Nobody truly understands the scriptures unless they believe as you do," eliminates any possible constructive dialogue.

The other premise that determine your stoic stonewalling against information is your ancient perspective of the argument is Academia versus God.
Why not read what Paul had to say about the value of his education versus the value of his faith? (Philippians 3:4-7) Then we (hopefully) can have a more meaningful discussion. You are locked in "head knowledge", which is sad to those of us who have moved beyond it to faith.

I was in academia for many years, so I know whereof I speak.
 
Last edited:

Ajax

Active Member
Why not read what Paul had to say about the value of his education versus the value of his faith? (Philippians 3:4-7) Then we (hopefully) can have a more meaningful discussion. You are locked in "head knowledge", which is sad to those of us who have moved beyond it to faith.

I was in academia for many years, so I know whereof I speak.
Paul was a huge liar, megalomaniac and totally unreliable.
He claimed that "For neither did I receive it (the gospel) from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ."(Galatians 1:12).

According to Acts 9, the only words that Jesus told him on the road to Damascus were: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” and “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.

But in Acts 9:19-21 it is written that "For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus. 20 And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 And all who heard him were amazed, and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name?"
 
Last edited:

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Paul was a huge liar, megalomaniac and totally unreliable.
He claimed that "For neither did I receive it (the gospel) from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ."(Galatians 1:12).

According to Acts 9, the only words that Jesus told him on the road to Damascus were: "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” and “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; 6 but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.

But in Acts 9:19-21 it is written that "For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus. 20 And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21 And all who heard him were amazed, and said, “Is not this the man who made havoc in Jerusalem of those who called on this name?"
So how was Paul lying?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Why not read what Paul had to say about the value of his education versus the value of his faith? (Philippians 3:4-7) Then we (hopefully) can have a more meaningful discussion. You are locked in "head knowledge", which is sad to those of us who have moved beyond it to faith.
I have read this, It does not help your case of intentional ignorance,
I was in academia for many years,

Ir did not help your attitude toward scholars
so I know whereof I speak.
Intentional ignorance based on an ancient tribal agenda,
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
He wasn't lying. Anyone who claims that he did is just looking for a way to slander him.
I actually do not believe Paul lied, He simply believed in God and Jesus Christ from a Hellenist Roman perspective and was the founder of the Roman Church, He sincerely believed what he wrote.
 

jimb

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes, your rejection of academia.
FWIW, I graduated summa cum laude, have a Master's degree and headed a university research lab for several years. I don't reject academia, but judge it for what it's worth.
 
Last edited:

Ajax

Active Member
So how was Paul lying?
a) It was the disciples who taught him for several days and perhaps Barnabas and immediately started preaching. Jesus taught him nothing.

b) He admitted himself, that he does not consider lying a sin if it helps God glorified. Paul knew that God forbids lying in the scriptures (Lev 19:11)

c) 2 Cor 12:16 "But be that as it may, I did not burden you myself; nevertheless, devious person that I am, I took you in by deceit."

d) 1 Cor 9:20-22 "To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

e) He claimed three ways of salvation.
 
Last edited:
Top