Righteousness

[Shadow Wolf]

So we should just get rid of our justice system? Allow criminal activity without consequence?

No, we need to overhaul to it be based on compassion, empathy, rehabilitation, and not sinking to the level of the criminal - things that actually work and help to make a difference in the long run.

 

[Brian2]

Exactly where did Jesus preach against slavery?

I don't know exactly but He taught to love our neighbour and of equality of all, and even the latter is probably not taught explicitly. The truth believed in society has a way of infiltrating into all corners. In that way it is like the leaven in the doe that leavens the whole lump eventually.

 

[Brian2]

Jesus didn't abolish slavery. No, we humans advanced morality and now slavery is banned throughout the world.

Advanced morally by actually enshrining the Judeo Christian ethics in law. That's good.
Slavery continues however.
Slavery in a proper context could still be used as part of the solution for things however. Paying back debts for example.

The Messiah was supposed to end wars. Europe being Christianized didn't help. But, as we moved further away from god amd quit turning to an ancient book of superstitions we've far fewer wars, to the point for so much of the world our chances of dying from a violent act or war has never been lower.

War seems pretty common these days also even if most countries are realising that cooperation for the advancement of all is a better option than power and taking over other countries.

Jesus does not allow for freedom of religion, and no surprise when we consider there are punishments (including death) for violating and leaving the faith. Humans advanced morality and now we have freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion was the state when Christianity began and power in the church began to change people to a different way of thinking, at odds with the teachings of Jesus. Heretics were punished when the political power of Christianity took over and politicians ruled the church it seems.
I don't know of any Christian groups that stop people from leaving on punishment of death.

We had kings with a "divine right to rule" that was mandated by Jehovah when Europe was very Christian. But we advanced morality, did away with that lunacy, and now we have liberal democracies with elections, which also helped bring more political and social stability.

That can be good or not depending which group is in power.

The Bible is very much into punishment, and prescribes death for many offenses. We advanced morality by abandoning the nonsense of "eye for an eye," by realizing emotional demands and wants are not justice, and bringing about the concept punishment should be proportionate to the crime.
We also have domestic abuse and child abuse laws. There is no more selling your children into slavery. There is no more beating them with a rod. There is no more killing them for being rebellious.

You are talking about the OT laws where it was a different sort of society and "eye for an eye" was seen as justice (mediated by the judges who could weigh the circumstances etc and apply mercy and moderation where needed.)
Injustices happen all the time these days still unfortunately.
The view of children was different also and they were seen as an asset as well as our responsibility to care for.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Advanced morally by actually enshrining the Judeo Christian ethics in law. That's good.

There's nothing of that that would lead one to reasonable conclude slavery must be abolished or should be abolished.

Slavery in a proper context could still be used as part of the solution for things however. Paying back debts for example.

Slavery is never appropriate or proper. Owning people is wrong no matter how you look at it or justify it.

War seems pretty common these days also even if most countries are realising that cooperation for the advancement of all is a better option than power and taking over other countries.

I didn't say wars aren't happening, but much of the world is having far fewer of them and so much of us are living longer because the chances of being killed in war or violence has never been lower.

Freedom of religion was the state when Christianity began and power in the church began to change people to a different way of thinking, at odds with the teachings of Jesus.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" throws freedom of religion out the window, and no one has really practiced that concept until over the past few hundred years or so (America was the first to put it in writing).

 

[Brian2]

Much like "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," it just doesn't work when you fully flesh this out.

It does work really, it's just playing with words that gets it to the point of not working. The context in which it was given was loving God first and doing to others what God would have us do.
The doing unto others saying simplifies that but the context is the same.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It does work really, it's just playing with words that gets it to the point of not working. The context in which it was given was loving God first and doing to others what God would have us do.
The doing unto others saying simplifies that but the context is the same.

No, it doesn't work. I can think of a few situations where that is entirely inappropriate advice and should not be followed.
A proper morality must begin with considerations towards others, not what I want.

 

[Brian2]

There's nothing of that that would lead one to reasonable conclude slavery must be abolished or should be abolished.

It was the injustice of stealing people from their homes and forcing them to be a slave and then treating them unjustly and inhumanely that made slavery wrong.
Slavery still happens these days in similar ways and is wrong. Slavery also happens in other ways and we applaud it. We become slaves to our job because we need the money etc.
Over the years even this form of slavery has modified in the number of hours and conditions of work and employee rights etc but of course there are always those who push back against these laws.

Slavery is never appropriate or proper. Owning people is wrong no matter how you look at it or justify it.

In the context of the societies in the OT times it would have been another story and view but yes I would agree with you and ownership should not come into it. Legal contracts and responsibilities is what takes the place of ownership and our responsibilities for the welfare of our employees just as the OT laws had responsibilities for the welfare of the slaves,,,,,,,,,but certainly not as detailed as anything these days.
It is always not ideal when moral responsibilities to others needs to be made law, but that is the state of our moral advancement even if in general the Christian ethic of caring for all people has taken over societies in the world as a concept.

I didn't say wars aren't happening, but much of the world is having far fewer of them and so much of us are living longer because the chances of being killed in war or violence has never been lower.

If that is true it is good.

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" throws freedom of religion out the window, and no one has really practiced that concept until over the past few hundred years or so (America was the first to put it in writing).

The context of that law "thou shall have no other gods..." is the Jewish law where the law giver was God, there was nothing in there to force those of other religions to become a Jew and there is nothing in Christianity which says to force everyone to believe in Jesus and punish them if they do not.
Thou shalt have no other gods does not throw freedom of religion out the window except it was important if you wanted this one God to be you God and if you wanted to be a Jew.
But of course the whole thing went haywire when people en masse and the Kings etc decided it was OK to worship other gods. God had to deal with that and He did by applying the punishments for such a thing, but God was always patient and slow to punish and there was always the plea to come back to Yahweh the God who had done so much for the Jews.

 

[Brian2]

No, it doesn't work. I can think of a few situations where that is entirely inappropriate advice and should not be followed.
A proper morality must begin with considerations towards others, not what I want.

It is not as if it is suggesting to force sex on others just because you might like them to force you into sex.
In the context of loving you neighbour it is the other person who is being considered. We are to love our neighbour as we love ourselves.
It is not a saying of Jesus that is saying we should exploit others for the sake of what we want. It has to be twisted to end up at that place.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is not as if it is suggesting to force sex on others just because you might like them to force you into sex.
In the context of loving you neighbour it is the other person who is being considered. We are to love our neighbour as we love ourselves.
It is not a saying of Jesus that is saying we should exploit others for the sake of what we want. It has to be twisted to end up at that place.

Rape is not even what I had on my mind.
Rather, it's something like a hug. Most people like them, lots of people give them and they give them without thought. They like hugs, doesn't everyone? No. One person may like being hugged and want to be hugged. That satisfies the so-called Golden Rule. But this brings on discomfort for some, and they'd really rather wish you didn't.
Thus we must begin with considering others first and not what I want.

 

[Brian2]

Rape is not even what I had on my mind.
Rather, it's something like a hug. Most people like them, lots of people give them and they give them without thought. They like hugs, doesn't everyone? No. One person may like being hugged and want to be hugged. That satisfies the so-called Golden Rule. But this brings on discomfort for some, and they'd really rather wish you didn't.
Thus we must begin with considering others first and not what I want.

With some things I guess it has to be a matter of trial first and when we find people don't like hugs we can not be so forceful about it and when the person who does not like hugs finds that we do they might want to relax to give the other what they like. Doing to others as we would like them to do to us and loving our neighbour as we love ourselves is not prescriptive in any given situation but it is the love of neighbour that takes priority and not what we want.

 

[Brian2]

Rape is not even what I had on my mind.
Rather, it's something like a hug. Most people like them, lots of people give them and they give them without thought. They like hugs, doesn't everyone? No. One person may like being hugged and want to be hugged. That satisfies the so-called Golden Rule. But this brings on discomfort for some, and they'd really rather wish you didn't.
Thus we must begin with considering others first and not what I want.

Probably a better way to see the "do unto others" saying is "Treat others as you would like them to treat you." And that way is always with love.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It was the injustice of stealing people from their homes and forcing them to be a slave and then treating them unjustly and inhumanely that made slavery wrong.

And yet your god said it's ok to do that. He said to subject them to body modifications, his law is slaves can beaten as severely as the master wants so long as permanent damage isn't done and the slave recovers within a few days, women were considered a part of the plunder of a city and kept as sex slaves, and if a man sold his kids into slavery the son went free after awhile but the daughter didn't.

Legal contracts and responsibilities is what takes the place of ownership

Contracts are not ownership of another. They are legally binding agreements.

In the context of the societies in the OT times it would have been another story

So?

If that is true it is good.

It actually is true. Combined with medical advances and we're getting to see what happens to us as we get old and study it far better than we ever have before. Of course not all of the world has reached this level of peace, but it's accurate to say that for most of us our tomorrow is vastly more secure than our ancestors at any point, and true enough it's been 76 years since there have been any major internal conflicts in Europe.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

With some things I guess it has to be a matter of trial first and when we find people don't like hugs we can not be so forceful about it and when the person who does not like hugs finds that we do they might want to relax to give the other what they like. Doing to others as we would like them to do to us and loving our neighbour as we love ourselves is not prescriptive in any given situation but it is the love of neighbour that takes priority and not what we want.

You don't go by trial and error. You consider the other person first. You probably don't know if this person will like a hug or not. Don't assume. Ask.

Probably a better way to see the "do unto others" saying is "Treat others as you would like them to treat you." And that way is always with love.

That's saying the same thing. A proper moral and ethical approach cannot begin with you/I want. It has to be based upon first considering others.

 

[Brian2]

You don't go by trial and error. You consider the other person first. You probably don't know if this person will like a hug or not. Don't assume. Ask.

OK that's another way and maybe a better way.

That's saying the same thing. A proper moral and ethical approach cannot begin with you/I want. It has to be based upon first considering others.

A way to discern how others would like to be treated is to consider how you would like to be treated.
If we are just looking at how we feel, we might feel angry and want to hit the other person, if we consider how we would want to be treated in that situation that hopefully brings a different response, one of grace and peace.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A way to discern how others would like to be treated is to consider how you would like to be treated.

If I did that, I'd leave my shopping carts where I parked because if I had such a job I would want to spend more time outside. But that can cause issues and is impolite. So, despite what I want, I consider the employee who may be delayed leaving for home having to round up stray carts.

 

[Brian2]

And yet your god said it's ok to do that. He said to subject them to body modifications, his law is slaves can beaten as severely as the master wants so long as permanent damage isn't done and the slave recovers within a few days, women were considered a part of the plunder of a city and kept as sex slaves, and if a man sold his kids into slavery the son went free after awhile but the daughter didn't.

There are various laws for slavery in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They vary and probably reflect the times. I don't approve of human ownership but those times were different.

Contracts are not ownership of another. They are legally binding agreements.

Ownership is a legally binding thing also. The thing is that it was not always an agreement even though it was in Israel if someone sold themselves to a master or sold their daughter or son to a master to be their slave.

So?

The context would have answered a lot of the complaints about slavery then that we have.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There are various laws for slavery in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. They vary and probably reflect the times. I don't approve of human ownership but those times were different.

So what?
The what is we learned better than these men claiming to speak to god, and morality has advanced sense these men wrote in the name of their god, since the the Vatican became a political powerhouse, it advanced since the 99 Thesis, it's even advanced over the course of my lifetime (like smoking in public buildings being largely and mostly banned).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ownership is a legally binding thing also. The thing is that it was not always an agreement even though it was in Israel if someone sold themselves to a master or sold their daughter or son to a master to be their slave.

Slavery is nothing like a contract. In a contract both parties must agree and enter it into willingly. And neither party has ownership over the other, and cannot do anything outside of that.contract or there are legal consequences for breach of contract.
Slavery is forced, and legally reinforced where it's been practiced.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Slavery is nothing like a contract. In a contract both parties must agree and enter it into willingly. And neither party has ownership over the other, and cannot do anything outside of that.contract or there are legal consequences for breach of contract.
Slavery is forced, and legally reinforced where it's been practiced.

If God was in favour slavery, why would He go to the trouble of delivering His people from Egypt? The celebration of Pesach is a celebration of freedom from slavery. In Christ, this celebration becomes a celebration of freedom from slavery to sin.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Unconditional love has no conditions. There is no action that can be done that will stop Unconditional love from loving. Unconditional love always does what is best for the other. It has never been about self.

God's system of returning our actions, in time, so that one might Discover what those actions really mean is teaching everyone to love Unconditionally. After all, that is what everyone wants returning whether they realize it now or not.

When religions attempt to intimidate the choices and actions of people based on what they say God wants, clearly shows religion does not understand God at all. Religion claims to be so right and righteous yet they really do not have a clue. Sad! On the other hand, this should be expected since religions are the creation of mankind. That is who they really reflect.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

I think l agree with what you are saying here, but l need clarification!

Can we love unconditionally, as God does, without dying to sin?