There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Iti oj]

Serenity

As you can see Exodus explains that the wife and children remain property for life.

As you can also see from Leviticus, it was lawful to purchase foreign slaves. The seven year rule applied only to male Hebrew slaves.

He has yet to respond to the foreigners point, for pages now.

 

[Iti oj]

How does the bible not Saction having foreign slaves?

 

[Serenity7855]

In this post you state that the children are under a seven year contract. Now you change it to the children are under their mothers contract. Its hard to discuss things with you when you can't keep your story straight.

With their mothers.

 

[Serenity7855]

He has yet to respond to the foreigners point, for pages now.

You are lying. I have answered this.

 

[Iti oj]

You are lying. I have answered this.

For the first time this page, if I'm wrong show me where you did and I'll apologize.

 

[Serenity7855]

How does the bible not Saction having foreign slaves?

The bible does not sanction anything. As I have said many times in this thread, it is a book of commandments, not a history book. That there were foreign slaves does not mean that God sanctioned them. It was the action and free will of mankind, not God. The argument that I responded to was about Exodus 20: 2 - 6 claiming that God advocates slavery. The verses are about servants being taken in rather then allowing them to starve and die of exposure. It was showing how Moses organised it to prevent their deaths. It was being turned into a "isn't God wicked" indictment by trolls.

 

[Serenity7855]

For the first time this page, if I'm wrong show me where you did and I'll apologize.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3964623-post3593.html

 

[Iti oj]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3964623-post3593.html

Ok, sorry about that then, I was wrong, but how is that not condoning slavery?

 

[Iti oj]

The bible does not sanction anything. As I have said many times in this thread, it is a book of commandments, not a history book. That there were foreign slaves does not mean that God sanctioned them. It was the action and free will of mankind, not God. The argument that I responded to was about Exodus 20: 2 - 6 claiming that God advocates slavery. The verses are about servants being taken in rather then allowing them to starve and die of exposure. It was showing how Moses organised it to prevent their deaths. It was being turned into a "isn't God wicked" indictment by trolls.

If God made the rules for owning them then he sanctioned them, if it was immoral God would have said so and out lawed the practice.

 

[Iti oj]

So the claim is that the wife and child of a slave fall into their own 7 year agreement , is this biblically supported?

 

[Serenity7855]

Hmmm...Not sure I understand that. My understanding of the Trinity is not one of my strong-suits.

To be honest, I do not believe in the trinity, or God incarnate. It is not mentioned in the bible, yet the founding forefathers, in their wisdom, decided that was Gods nature. But better then that the following verses talk of three separate entities and not a trinity. It happens throughout the bible when Jesus speaks to God. If a trinity were true then he is speaking to himself. No, a trinity, or God incarnate, is illogical.

Matthew 3

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Yep! It can also make it frustrating, but I think if both sides realise they're not going to convince the other, and are just trying to make their side better understood (at least as an immediate goal) the whole process becomes a lot more interesting, and a lot less frustrating.

You, my friend, are a breath of fresh air. I am not an evangelist, I am not trying to convert you or anybody else to Christianity or claim that I am a better person then you because I am a Christian. I cannot convert you or anybody else. It is quite impossible. Conversion is personal and the choice of the individual. I can answer questions but conversion is down to the individual and their personal desires. To me, you sound like a pretty decent chap so your half ways there anyway.

Whilst I don't agree with any of this, it seems consistent enough to me.

But that is OK. It is my belief. I honestly do not expect everyone or anyone to believe it is true. It is true for me so it floats my boat.

Yep, I see your point.

Thank you.

Nope. I was mentioning to someone the other day that I quite enjoy being on the boards with people who take the time to explain their points of view, even if those people can have radically different views to mine.
Not everyone thinks that way, I know, but that's how it is for me.

And you are to be commended for it.

I've read it a couple of times. It's interesting to me. But how did you come to that conclusion? Is it a particular denomination of Christianity, is it your own interpretation, etc?

Most of it is in the bible, however, I was a Mormon for 25 years before I realised that it was not entirely for me, so I left, taking with me some of their doctrines that seemed like sense to me and we're conformable in the Holy Bible. Basically, sound Mormon interpretations. Today I stand on my own. I have no denominations, no Pastors or Priests interpreting what I am perfectly capable of interpreting myself, specifically for me, unless you ask me questions. I am a bit of a realist. As with everything in my life religion must be plausible it cannot be magical and impossible, like the trinity or an interventionary God in a system governed by free agency. It is illogical.

Does this mean that our definition of natural is too limited, then? What we see as 'natural' are merely the lesser natural things, and there are a set of greater natural things as well?
This would see God defined as a natural being, which may or may not sound blasphemous to you, not sure. That's not my intent though, just trying to understand you.

To be honest, I have never looked on it like that before. Hmm, I will have to give it some thought. It sounds ok but it will stir up the scientists here, but why not. It would just be undiscovered natural laws.

It's a mundane question, but the definition of wickedness is oftentimes where a theoretical discussion about religion and creation becomes a more practical discussion about morals, laws and what we allow in our society.

Again, I am an infant with objective and subjective morality. Whether morals would still exist without a God or is a God necessary for us to have morals. I really don't know, and now I am looking at epigenetic, which indicates that genes can change depending on the environment we live in, so, could we become moral anyway, over time, in a specific environment, or do we have to have a moral compass, moral accountability. I don't have those answers yet.

I doubt it's possible to encapsulate what you believe about wickedness in any simple manner, and would admit it's an unfair question, but if you CAN tell me how you judge wickedness, I'd be interested.

Wickedness, to me, is the wilful contravention of Gods commandments without any remorse or conscious.

I think a God with some level of constraint (for whatever reason) fits better with the evidence before me than a God with no constraints.
I don't see evidence of God at all, to be honest (obviously given my atheism), but if there were a God he would have to be non-interventionist, or at least limited (assuming omnibenevolence).

Well, that is a first. Most people think that God can do the impossible, like a magician, but that is absurd. You sure you are an atheist . It is good to see that I am not unique in my train of thought.

No problems with the length. Sorry it took me a bit to respond.
One last question...you mention here that living a Christ like life is sufficient...do you mean that man is judged by his works rather than his faith, or are both required?

Simple answer, it has to be both. It is an overall Judgement so everything must be taken into consideration. Even things like the era in which you lived, the music you listened to, your peer group, you parents, the government, your siblings. Anything that could effect your choices.

 

[Serenity7855]

If God made the rules for owning them then he sanctioned them, if it was immoral God would have said so and out lawed the practice.

Where did God make the rules. We have done this already. God does not intervene. It was Moses making the rules

 

[Serenity7855]

So the claim is that the wife and child of a slave fall into their own 7 year agreement , is this biblically supported?

Yes, Exodus 21: 2 - 6

Bible Commentary

(7) If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant.—The right of selling their children into slavery was regarded in ancient times as inherent in the patria potestas, and was practised largely by many nations (Herod. v. 6; Heyne, Opusc., vol. iv., p. 125). Among the Hebrews such sales were, comparatively speaking, rare; but still they occasionally took place, in consequence of extreme poverty (Nehemiah 5:5). Women sold in this way might claim their freedom at the end of six years if they chose (Deuteronomy 15:17); but if purchased to be wives, they received a further protection. If the intention were carried out, they were to be entitled to the status of wives during their whole lifetime, even though their husbands contracted further marriages (Exodus 21:10). If, instead of becoming the wife of her purchaser, a woman was made over by him to his son, she was to enjoy all the rights of a daughter (Exodus 21:9). If the purchaser declined to act in either of these two ways, he was compelled to take one of two other courses. Either he must get another Hebrew to discharge his obligation of marriage (Exodus 21:8), or he must return the maid intact to her father, without making any demand for the restitution of the purchase-money (Exodus 21:11). These provisions afforded a considerable protection to the slave-concubine, who might otherwise have been liable to grievous wrong and oppression.

Exodus 21:7 Commentaries: "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

 

[Iti oj]

Where did God make the rules. We have done this already. God does not intervene. It was Moses making the rules

Moses was Gods prophet, the prophet spoke for God...

 

[Serenity7855]

Moses was Gods prophet, the prophet spoke for God...

That is not how it works, as I have said, God cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection, however, the Holy Ghost is a spirit so he can dwell with imperfection. The draw back there is that the Holy Ghost is an influence that fills the emencity of space. Those who live a Christ centred life and are sufficiently worthy can tap into that influence like tapping into a quantum sub-automic field. This goes even deeper, however, I doubt whether you can comprehend this let alone the deeper doctrines of God. So, Moses would have fasted and prayed putting before God, via the influence of the Holy Ghost, his plan or the laws that he had devised. He would have received either a swelling of the bosom and a confirmatory feeling sanctioning his proposal. If the answer is no, then he would have received a stupor of thought. The crucial part of this process is what Moses does with the information he receives. What ever he does must be his choice as God cannot intervene he can only influence. There has to be total free agency or the entire plan of salvation fails. At the end of the day it is the decision of Moses. The plan of Redemption is a perfect plan. It cannot be faulted. I have tried hard but failed. So knock yourself out trying, you will never ever succeed. Sorry for the arrogance but I have asked many of these question and have never found a single error or fault.

 

[adi2d]

That is not how it works, as I have said, God cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection, however, the Holy Ghost is a spirit so he can dwell with imperfection. The draw back there is that the Holy Ghost is an influence that fills the emencity of space. Those who live a Christ centred life and are sufficiently worthy can tap into that influence like tapping into a quantum sub-automic field. This goes even deeper, however, I doubt whether you can comprehend this let alone the deeper doctrines of God. So, Moses would have fasted and prayed putting before God, via the influence of the Holy Ghost, his plan or the laws that he had devised. He would have received either a swelling of the bosom and a confirmatory feeling sanctioning his proposal. If the answer is no, then he would have received a stupor of thought. The crucial part of this process is what Moses does with the information he receives. What ever he does must be his choice as God cannot intervene he can only influence. There has to be total free agency or the entire plan of salvation fails. At the end of the day it is the decision of Moses. The plan of Redemption is a perfect plan. It cannot be faulted. I have tried hard but failed. So knock yourself out trying, you will never ever succeed. Sorry for the arrogance but I have asked many of these question and have never found a single error or fault.

And yet you posted Mathew 3 17 where God speaks.

 

[Serenity7855]

And yet you posted Mathew 3 17 where God speaks.

When I saw this I laughed, and then I realised that you were being serious. The give away should have been who heard the voice of God. Apart from the fact that it was a voice and not God in person. Despite the fact that it was not a intervention but a proclamation of how pleased God was with his only begotten son, born perfect in the flesh. Forget those obvious give aways, it was the son of God who was being spoken to. I am not sure if your ignorance is genuine or you are purposely trolling.

 

[adi2d]

When I saw this I laughed, and then I realised that you were being serious. The give away should have been who heard the voice of God. Apart from the fact that it was a voice and not God in person. Despite the fact that it was not a intervention but a proclamation of how pleased God was with his only begotten son, born perfect in the flesh. Forget those obvious give aways, it was the son of God who was being spoken to. I am not sure if your ignorance is genuine or you are purposely trolling.

I'm not trolling. I guess I'm ignorant. I thought the Bible was supposed to be true.

 

[Serenity7855]

I'm not trolling. I guess I'm ignorant. I thought the Bible was supposed to be true.

It is true. Sadly, there are those that, for some unknown reason, want it to be untrue. They are not satisfied to leave people alone in their personal beliefs. They make it their business to taunt Christians

 

[Iti oj]

It is true. Sadly, there are those that, for some unknown reason, want it to be untrue. They are not satisfied to leave people alone in their personal beliefs. They make their business to taunt Christians

Beliefs are not insular. That's the problem. Always so busy feeling like your being attached, never once realizing we might feel the same way.