Truth and Religion

[Samael_Khan]

To me the objective way to understand the Bible is by the use of its corresponding cross-reference verses and passages.
The objective standard is to research the Bible by topic or subject arrangement.
Since the Bible is Not written in alphabetical order, then the aid of a comprehensive concordance puts Bible topics / subjects in ABC order for us.
To me it would seem logical for everyone to say they understand or why would they want to stay in their religion__________
An inquiring mind wants to know, I've met a lot of people who don't inquire about their beliefs.
I have cousins that to me are very logical college educated people, but when a Bible subject comes up then logic goes right out the window, so to speak.
Instead of logic it becomes Higher Criticism instead of an open mind. Seems to me their standard is the standard of self-righteousness over Scripture.
The old ' cafeteria-style' Christian of 'picking and choosing' which parts of the Bible suits their purpose or goals in life.
There are people who 'like lies' according to Revelation 22:15 and God does Not interfere with their choice; even though: lies are sins.
Please notice 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11 because God allows people to believe lies if they want to. For that reason biblical truth is hidden from them.
It is their choice unless they choose to repent.

I agree with many of your points here. The only thing I would start off with is reading each book of the Bible on its own terms and in its own context because, as we know, each book of the bible is an actual separate "book".

Then we compare what each book says to each other, and see what matches and what doesn't.

Most Christians I know do not understand their religion as it seems that reading is the barrier. Most people do not like to read books and study. Most people join religions because of emotion, not logic.

Higher Criticism has its place. I wouldn't argue with scholars who know the history and archaeology behind the text and pretty much know way more about the Bible and culture than I do.

As for picking and choosing, I haven't come across one professed Christian who doesn't pick and choose suits their own agenda. Be very careful when people say that they have the correct interpretation of ambiguous verses. This is mainly true when Christians proof text. It is interesting to note what text people consider literal or figurative, and what text people adjust all other texts about a topic around. That in itself is a subjective and problematic method. One persons figurative text is another's literal text and that creates the divisions between beliefs.

I see what you are saying when you say that people like believing lies. Many people do not want to know about the slavery and anti-homosexuality verses in the bible, because it doesn't suit what they want to believe, so they ignore those verses, or come up with an excuse to reinterpret them or brush them aside. They also care more about following their leader's interpretation of the verses rather than interpret the verses in light of their context or logical conclusion.

 

[Samael_Khan]

And, please notice the word ' brother ' ( spiritual brother at verse 11) found at 1 Corinthians 5:10-13

And?

This still has nothing to do with my point.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I agree with many of your points here. The only thing I would start off with is reading each book of the Bible on its own terms and in its own context because, as we know, each book of the bible is an actual separate "book".
Then we compare what each book says to each other, and see what matches and what doesn't.
Most Christians I know do not understand their religion as it seems that reading is the barrier. Most people do not like to read books and study. Most people join religions because of emotion, not logic.
Higher Criticism has its place. I wouldn't argue with scholars who know the history and archaeology behind the text and pretty much know way more about the Bible and culture than I do.
As for picking and choosing, I haven't come across one professed Christian who doesn't pick and choose suits their own agenda. Be very careful when people say that they have the correct interpretation of ambiguous verses. This is mainly true when Christians proof text. It is interesting to note what text people consider literal or figurative, and what text people adjust all other texts about a topic around. That in itself is a subjective and problematic method. One persons figurative text is another's literal text and that creates the divisions between beliefs.
I see what you are saying when you say that people like believing lies. Many people do not want to know about the slavery and anti-homosexuality verses in the bible, because it doesn't suit what they want to believe, so they ignore those verses, or come up with an excuse to reinterpret them or brush them aside. They also care more about following their leader's interpretation of the verses rather than interpret the verses in light of their context or logical conclusion.

I would like to add that at least ancient Israel was never part of a 'slave-trade business' as was the United States.
In Scripture, masters should treat slaves like hired help - Leviticus 25:39-40; Exodus chapter 21.
As Scripture shows, that does Not mean they all ended up treating slaves that way.
If an Israelite priest bought anyone that person ate just as the priest and his family ate according to Leviticus 22:11; Exodus 12:43-44
In Israel No slaves worked on the Sabbath - Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14
However, if a person was lazy he could easily get himself into debt and end up being a slave. - Proverbs 12:24B

To pick and choose could lead to a person trying to establish their own righteousness as a standard.
Yes, one persons literal text to another might be figurative. For example: Ecclesiastes 1:4 B that 'Earth abides forever'.
Some say it is figurative meaning it's 'people' Not the planet that abides forever. ( people without a planet ?)
I've also been told that the meek have already inherited the Earth - Psalms 37:9-11; Matthew 5:5
( Makes me wonder: are the jails full of humble meek people ? )

Also, to note there is a difference between being homosexual and the practice of homosexual activities.
In Scripture ' fornication ' (porneia) is wrong for anyone.

Genuine ' wheat ' Christians would pick and choose Jesus' agenda. It's the fake ' weed/tares ' who don't. - Matthew 13:27-30
So, each decide about Jesus' agenda.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I would like to add that at least ancient Israel was never part of a 'slave-trade business' as was the United States.
In Scripture, masters should treat slaves like hired help - Leviticus 25:39-40; Exodus chapter 21.
As Scripture shows, that does Not mean they all ended up treating slaves that way.
If an Israelite priest bought anyone that person ate just as the priest and his family ate according to Leviticus 22:11; Exodus 12:43-44
In Israel No slaves worked on the Sabbath - Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14
However, if a person was lazy he could easily get himself into debt and end up being a slave. - Proverbs 12:24B

Notice that Leviticus is referring to brothers" those of Israel" who are taken into slavery. You are ignoring the acquisition and rules of non hebrew slaves.

Leviticus 25: 39-46:
39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

In the OT there is a distinction between the laws that apply to Hebrew slaves and those that apply to Non hebrew slaves. The Israelites were allowed to participate in the slave trade, at least in buying foreigners as permanent property. Many laws, such as freeing the freeing of slaves laws, specifically mentions Israelite slaves, brothers, and not foreign slaves. That is reprehensible. The only reason why God didn't want Israelites to be other people's slaves was because he brought them out of Egypt.

As for slaves not working on the sabbath and how much they eat, that is a pretty low bar. You are assuming here that because Israelite slavery was not as harsh or extensive like the trans atlantic slave trade, that somehow it is excusable. In fact slavery in general in the middle east wasn't as bad as that.

To pick and choose could lead to a person trying to establish their own righteousness as a standard.
Yes, one persons literal text to another might be figurative. For example: Ecclesiastes 1:4 B that 'Earth abides forever'.
Some say it is figurative meaning it's 'people' Not the planet that abides forever. ( people without a planet ?)
I've also been told that the meek have already inherited the Earth - Psalms 37:9-11; Matthew 5:5
( Makes me wonder: are the jails full of humble meek people ? )

Yes, this especially happens in prophetic books. That is why there are different interpretations, with some clearly not fitting the context. Then people hop to other unrelated scriptures to proof text.

Your Ecclesiastes example is good. The context is actually contrasting human generations passing away to the earth which lasts forever. It would make no sense if earth applies to people as well. Yet the same people take new heaven and earth to mean literal heaven and earth in a prophetic book full of symbolism.

Same with the meek shall inherit the earth. As you say, the meek haven't.

I would apply the same to people saying that 144 000 is a literal 144 000 yet also say that the tribes are symbolic. A literal number made out of a symbolic people with no actual reason to say why the number is literal in a prophetic book. Others say that the tribes are literal and the number is symbolic, yet the tribes aren't the same. Either way it cherry picking what suits an agenda.

Also, to note there is a difference between being homosexual and the practice of homosexual activities.
In Scripture ' fornication ' (porneia) is wrong for anyone.

Yes, but being against either sexual orientation or action is being anti homosexual.

Genuine ' wheat ' Christians would pick and choose Jesus' agenda. It's the fake ' weed/tares ' who don't. - Matthew 13:27-30
So, each decide about Jesus' agenda.

There are lots of barriers to this actually. One is that people do not like reading and the other is feelings. Most Christians, which includes JW's, follow their beliefs based off feeling and not Bible study. They don't know for themselves what Jesus agenda is, but follow the agenda of the men that they follow. This is especially evident when they are willing to change their own views as soon as the leader/s change theirs. It shows that they are thrown around like sheep with a confused shepherd and that they do not have solid grounding of bible understanding.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Wrong, Jehovah's Witnesses do Not base beliefs off of feelings and Not Bible study - this can be seen at www.jw.org
Yes, Jesus agenda, so to speak, is the international declaring about God's Kingdom (thy kingdom come....) Daniel 2:44; Matthew 24:14

No confused shepherd, but 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 informs of what is next to come.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Notice that Leviticus is referring to brothers" those of Israel" who are taken into slavery. You are ignoring the acquisition and rules of non hebrew slaves. Leviticus 25: 39-46:
39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God.
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 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. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

In the OT there is a distinction between the laws that apply to Hebrew slaves and those that apply to Non hebrew slaves. The Israelites were allowed to participate in the slave trade, at least in buying foreigners as permanent property. Many laws, such as freeing the freeing of slaves laws, specifically mentions Israelite slaves, brothers, and not foreign slaves. That is reprehensible. The only reason why God didn't want Israelites to be other people's slaves was because he brought them out of Egypt.

As for slaves not working on the sabbath and how much they eat, that is a pretty low bar. You are assuming here that because Israelite slavery was not as harsh or extensive like the trans atlantic slave trade, that somehow it is excusable. In fact slavery in general in the middle east wasn't as bad as that.

Yes, this especially happens in prophetic books. That is why there are different interpretations, with some clearly not fitting the context. Then people hop to other unrelated scriptures to proof text.

Your Ecclesiastes example is good. The context is actually contrasting human generations passing away to the earth which lasts forever. It would make no sense if earth applies to people as well. Yet the same people take new heaven and earth to mean literal heaven and earth in a prophetic book full of symbolism.

Same with the meek shall inherit the earth. As you say, the meek haven't.

I would apply the same to people saying that 144 000 is a literal 144 000 yet also say that the tribes are symbolic. A literal number made out of a symbolic people with no actual reason to say why the number is literal in a prophetic book. Others say that the tribes are literal and the number is symbolic, yet the tribes aren't the same. Either way it cherry picking what suits an agenda.

Yes, but being against either sexual orientation or action is being anti homosexual.

There are lots of barriers to this actually. One is that people do not like reading and the other is feelings. Most Christians, which includes JW's, follow their beliefs based off feeling and not Bible study. They don't know for themselves what Jesus agenda is, but follow the agenda of the men that they follow. This is especially evident when they are willing to change their own views as soon as the leader/s change theirs. It shows that they are thrown around like sheep with a confused shepherd and that they do not have solid grounding of bible understanding.

Not the same as the slave-trade USA business.
Kidnapping and selling was to be punished with death.
Women captives were taken as wives, thus given the status of wife, not slave.
The Mosaic Law should have lead them to treat slaves with respect and kindness.
-Exodus 20:10; Exodus 21:12, 16 set free ->Exodus 21: 26-27; Leviticus 22:11; as wife ->Deuteronomy 21:10-14

 

[Samael_Khan]

Wrong, Jehovah's Witnesses do Not base beliefs off of feelings and Not Bible study - this can be seen at www.jw.org

http://www.jw.org Ask fellow JW's why they believe and why they joined the group. Most won't tell you that it was because of intense Bible study, but what triggered their feelings or gave them some "revelation" about truth, which isn't related to in depth study. Your videos often point this out. Many might study a bit but join because of how they felt about the group.

Is there any specific article you want me to check out at the website?

Yes, Jesus agenda, so to speak, is the international declaring about God's Kingdom (thy kingdom come....) Daniel 2:44; Matthew 24:14

That is only one aspect of Jesus agenda. Every group claiming to follow Jesus has some aspect of his agenda. What matters is if a group follows all of Jesus agenda and not bits here and pieces there.

No confused shepherd, but 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 informs of what is next to come.

My point trumps that one:

"This is especially evident when they are willing to change their own views as soon as the leader/s change theirs. It shows that they are thrown around like sheep with a confused shepherd and that they do not have solid grounding of bible understanding."

Considering that you guys have changed beliefs such as the meaning of "generation" so often to the point that it makes no sense, your leaders and your fellow believers who do not understand these things are evidence that you are confused in some respects.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Not the same as the slave-trade USA business.
Kidnapping and selling was to be punished with death.
Women captives were taken as wives, thus given the status of wife, not slave.
The Mosaic Law should have lead them to treat slaves with respect and kindness.
-Exodus 20:10; Exodus 21:12, 16 set free ->Exodus 21: 26-27; Leviticus 22:11; as wife ->Deuteronomy 21:10-14

Why do you keep bringing up the US slave trade as if only at that level is slavery bad? Why do you have such a standard?

Exodus 20:10 - So what if they gave the slaves one day off a week? How does that makes their version of slavery acceptable? Do you think that it is OK to enslave people if they get one day off?

Exodus 21:12 - So it is OK to strike a man if he doesn't die? You do realise that you participate in the slave trade by buying slaves, not only if you kidnap a man in order to sell him yourself? The scripture I mentioned earlier clearly says that Israelites could buy slaves from other nations.

Exodus 21:26-27-So a man can beat his servant? The scripture doesn't condemn striking the eye, but striking to the point of destroying it. And they could beat their servant as long as they also don't knock out one of their teeth? Are you saying that beating a slave is acceptable?

Leviticus 22:11- OK. So the priest could feed the offering food to his slave. Such a low standard considering that if you want a slave to work you have to at least feed them otherwise the investment has gone to waste because the slave had died,

Deuteronomy 21:10-14: So earlier you point out that kidnapping is unacceptable, but they could just see a beautiful woman among the captives and take her as their wife, and that is OK? How is that not kidnapping if she didn't have a choice? It is sad that she also has to mourn her parents, Imagine what that means? Is she a willing participant?

I don't see how any of this is showing respect and kindness. These actions are pretty abhorrent.

Why do you have such a low standard as to what is respect and kindness when attempting to justify the OT? Is it because you genuinely believe that such a low standard is acceptable or are you so attached to your beliefs that you have no choice but to try and justify those things?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Not to justify, but it is MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, to MAN's injury - Ecclesiastes 8:9
That how things were back then, and never to return again under Christ's coming 1,000 year governmental reign over Earth.
Earthly conditions will be as described in Isaiah 35th chapter, No slavery ever again.

 

[rational experiences]

The human argument. I came from somewhere else. Spiritual. My life human is karmic. Not is inherited.

Versus a man adult as compared to man baby talking science. Self adult father status. Theist.

Science for civilization status.

Two forms of reasoning.

I don't theory advise to cause harm.

Or.

I theory design build abstract from natural change anything I want cause harm and destruction.

Teaching. Had creation proved it left a higher place of spirit historic by science conditions. Presence evil spirit manifestations. A proven state.

God meaning study of told body God ......by me a self......taught me as it's witness to changed form in science.

Human claim. I came from an eternal body....
Spirit.

Was life sacrificed body changed. Knowing I am a spiritual being.

Science knowing the original mass state from which creation arrived from in a conversion had changed.

Teaching advice God. Word use.

I convert mass in human designed science.

I said it Sion. I say convert Sion.

Conversion.

A law he says.

If I claim conversion occurred before God was made manifest. Held form mass in space I said it was A conversion.

God earth advised me of that realisation.

Teacher self. A man. One self. A human who quotes I speak as one human on behalf of all humans. One self one human.

Telling you from God O planet one mass Stone..one body my realisations

O planet history evolution. I am abstracted in that review. Not think about energy gases evolution in space.

I am not included as I was not there.

Why we know we came from spirit as a place abstract from creation.

 

[Bird123]

If you join a religion because it says that it teaches the truth, but continuously updates or outright changes its official beliefs, is the religion then contradicting itself?

Also, if you join the religion because of its current beliefs, but then those beliefs change, is it logical for them to accuse you of rejecting the truth if you leave because of the changes?

Are religions changing their beliefs?? I do not see it. Please list a few examples.

I have found no religion that really understands God at all. If a religion is changing, they could be changing toward the Truth. This could be a good sign. On the other hand, those who seek the truth should never rely on the beliefs of others. They should venture into undiscovered country to Discover the truth for themselves.

We are not meant to accept and follow. We are meant to Think, Venture, and Discover.

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

 

[Samael_Khan]

Are religions changing their beliefs?? I do not see it. Please list a few examples.

I have found no religion that really understands God at all. If a religion is changing, they could be changing toward the Truth. This could be a good sign. On the other hand, those who seek the truth should never rely on the beliefs of others. They should venture into undiscovered country to Discover the truth for themselves.

We are not meant to accept and follow. We are meant to Think, Venture, and Discover.

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

One example is Jehovah's Witnesses, whose "New Light" doctrine allows them to change their beliefs with the idea that they are changing towards truth.

If you look at Christianity and all its denominations, we can see the gradual changes over two millenniums of people's beliefs, which is why different groups cropped up all the time. This is still happening today on a big scale with regards to minor christian groups.

If we look at the Branch Davidians, David Koresh at one point changed the groups viewpoints on marriage, saying that only he was allowed to marry and have sex with women and that all other men should be celibate. Some people left the group while most stayed after he announced this. That is a radical change in belief.

From what I remember Mormon's had to change their beliefs on occasion. But you must speak to a Mormon on the forum about that.

These groups I have mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg.

I agree with your post as a whole.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Not to justify, but it is MAN has dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, to MAN's injury - Ecclesiastes 8:9
That how things were back then, and never to return again under Christ's coming 1,000 year governmental reign over Earth.
Earthly conditions will be as described in Isaiah 35th chapter, No slavery ever again.

You are dodging the point that these laws were made by god. Supposedly the "perfect law".

So, you originally point out these laws as proof that biblical slavery wasn't bad, and now that the obvious has been pointed out, you backtrack to how man is bad in order to justify the laws, as if god had nothing to do with them?

Did you think before mentioning those scriptures or were you just defending them because you have to in order to maintain your beliefs?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You are dodging the point that these laws were made by god. Supposedly the "perfect law".
So, you originally point out these laws as proof that biblical slavery wasn't bad, and now that the obvious has been pointed out, you backtrack to how man is bad in order to justify the laws, as if god had nothing to do with them?
Did you think before mentioning those scriptures or were you just defending them because you have to in order to maintain your beliefs?

The Law had to deal with the time frame, and I stressed that Israel was never in the salve-trade business as the US South.
Whether a Hebrew Slave or a foreign slave the master was Not to mistreat them.
Not listening is what made a worse situation which Jesus will straighten out any wrong doing in the resurrection. - Acts 24:15

 

[Samael_Khan]

The Law had to deal with the time frame, and I stressed that Israel was never in the salve-trade business as the US South.
Whether a Hebrew Slave or a foreign slave the master was Not to mistreat them.
Not listening is what made a worse situation which Jesus will straighten out any wrong doing in the resurrection. - Acts 24:15

As I said I don't care about the slave trade in the US comparison. That was worse than Biblical slavery, but that is like saying that a serial killer isn't bad because Hitler ordered the killing of millions of Jews.

You say that slaves shouldn't have been mistreated yet we have bible verses which condone the beating of slaves. What do you consider "mistreating" a slave?

It wasn't people not listening, in fact they were listening to the law in these instances. Your god said it was OK to beat slaves.

So I ask again, are your standards for treating a person in a respectful manner so low that you think that slavery is OK unless it is as bad as the trans-atlantic slave trade?So you are OK with the Arab slave trade, North African slave trade etc?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Israelites disobeyed God and forced slave labor upon upon Canaanites,etc.- Joshua 16:10; Judges 1:28; Judges 2:3;11-12; 1 Kings 9:20-21
What their disobedience caused was internal strife and the bad effect of the Israelites being lured into worship against their God.
It was MAN who dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, to MAN's injury - Ecclesiastes 8:9
The gist of the Mosaic Law was to treat with kindness .
-Exodus 20:10; Exodus 21:20; Exodus 21:16; Exodus 21:26-27; Leviticus 22:11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14

 

[Samael_Khan]

The Israelites disobeyed God and forced slave labor upon upon Canaanites,etc.- Joshua 16:10; Judges 1:28; Judges 2:3;11-12; 1 Kings 9:20-21
What their disobedience caused was internal strife and the bad effect of the Israelites being lured into worship against their God.
It was MAN who dominated MAN to MAN's hurt, to MAN's injury - Ecclesiastes 8:9

I already showed you the scripture saying that the Israelites were allowed to buy slaves from the nations according to god, which means that they were allowed to support the slave trade. Those slaves were also treated as property. Then they were allowed to beat their slaves, just not to a certain extent, according to the scriptures that you quoted.

The gist of the Mosaic Law was to treat with kindness .
-Exodus 20:10; Exodus 21:20; Exodus 21:16; Exodus 21:26-27; Leviticus 22:11; Deuteronomy 21:10-14

So you are saying that beating slaves and taking beautiful women from the captives as wives (it doesn't mention consent which is why they mention crying) is treating people with kindness?

Are you in denial and cannot accept the truth?