52
   

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 09:29 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

No problem discussing it as just a story. But I think you have picked up your interpretation of the story from the worst possible source - the religious.


I "picked up" my interpretation of it long after I left life among the religious. My interpretation of it is the result of lots and lots of study. A bibliography of my study sources is included below.

Quote:
I happen to agree with you on the redemption thing. In the sense that most Christians believe in, it is preposterous. Jesus might have been 'the Way' but any 'magical' properties of his blood has nothing to do with it. But I think his willingness to spill it all did. That is not to say we are incapable of both good and evil. But yeah, 'magic blood' would not be the solution.





Not sure of what you mean by the magic/magical blood. The use of the word "blood" in most Christian theology refers to "the blood sacrifice" not to the blood itself. Only in the consecration is the blood mentioned as "blood" (rather than the blood sacrifice)...and there is nothing magical about it.

The story...the myth...is preposterous. The "John 3:13" is an abomination. Imagine a god saying, "I will forgive you for offending me, but first you have to torture and kill my son."

Quote:
Bloody shame that sometimes we have to go back four years to find a worthwhile thread.


Glad you did, Leadfoot. Gave me an opportunity to post here again...after four years away.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: (These are the books I use for study...and debate citations_

St. Joseph Edition of The New American Bible; Catholic book Publishing, NY; 1968 (Catholic)

The New American Bible; Thomas Nelson Inc, Nashville; 1971 (Catholic)

The Holy Bible King James Version; Thomas Nelson, Nashville: 1984 (Protestant)

The Holy Bible New International Version; Zondervan Bible Pub. Grand Rapids; 1978 (Non-demoninational)

The Scofield Reference Holy Bible (King James Version); Oxford Univ. Press; NY; 1909 (Protestant)

The Holy Scriptures Masoretic Text; Jewish Publ Society; Philadelphia: 1955 (Jewish)

The Holy Bible, St.Joseph Textbook Edition, Confraternity Version; Catholic book Publ: NY; 1963; (Catholic)

The Holy Bible Revised Berkeley Version; The Gideons Intrl; 1984; (Non-denominational Protestant)

The New American Catholic Edition of The Holy Bible; Benziger Bros, Boston; 1950 (Catholic)

The Old Testament; Guild Press NY; 1965 (Catholic)

The Living Bible; Holman Illustrated Edition: A.J. Holman Co; Philadelphia; 1973 (Protestant)

The Holy Bible; King James Version; The World Publ Co: Cleveland; (no date); (Protestant)

The Old Testament; Hebrew Publishing Co: NY; 1916 (English & Hebrew) (Jewish)

**** Also I use

The Common Catechism of the Christian Faith: Seabury Press;NY 1975 (Protestant)

Catechism of the Catholic Church: Libreria Editrice Vaticana; Urbi et Orbi Comm; 1994 (Catholic)

The New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism: Catholic Book Publish; NY; 1962 (Catholic)

*****Plus, I have (estimated) 40 - 50 other books dealing with the Bible, religion, and philosophy that I use when posting.





Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 09:32 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Gotta admit Frank, for someone who rejects it, you have a great grasp of it.


Discussion of the Bible...and of Christianity...

...are very interesting.

I enjoy them.

And I did put lots of time studying the subject.

Oops...gotta go back and add that bibliography to my last post.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 09:40 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:

Gotta admit Frank, for someone who rejects it, you have a great grasp of it.

Many critics of religious belief, be they atheists, agnostics, or heretics, have a very good understanding of it.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 09:50 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Many critics of religious belief, be they atheists, agnostics, or heretics, have a very good understanding of it.

You can't completely understand something that someone else truly believes in unless you are able to also experience true belief in it too.

Take a simple example like a song that someone believes is truly prophetic, e.g. Imagine by John Lennon. You might understand the belief that without religion, there would be nothing to live or die for, and that would be liberating; but if you don't experience the same level of belief as the atheist who truly believes that war wouldn't happen if no one had any religion to live or die for, then you don't completely understand that faith in Lennon's Imagine as atheist prophecy.

You might be able to understand on a abstract level why atheists think Lennon's lyrics are right about religion causing war, but if you believe something different, you're not going to experience the same complete faith in that belief as the atheist.
bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 09:51 am
@hightor,
But certainly not all of them.

Certainly not all my fellow christians have a good grasp of it.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 10:02 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
You can't completely understand something that someone else truly believes in unless you are able to also experience true belief in it too.

First thing, it's not necessary to completely understand what someone else truly believes in order to criticize aspects of that belief, such as the practical ramifications of rejecting vaccination for religious reasons. Secondly, many non-believers did believe at one time and eventually were able to see their former beliefs from a different perspective and came to reject a supernatural interpretation of their religious experience.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 10:08 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
The story...the myth...is preposterous. The "John 3:13" is an abomination. Imagine a god saying, "I will forgive you for offending me, but first you have to torture and kill my son."

Don’t want to question your qualifications but how did you get that from these only two possibilities? Or was there a typo?

John 3:13 KJV
[13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

1 John 3:13 KJV
[13] Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.

You have a point on 'blood sacrifice'. I get that, but the idea behind it looks like a practice allowing man to show, in physical form, his recognition of God.
The story says that Jesus (and some kind of rebirth) changed the way Man and God were to interact. The sacrifice custom was in practice for a long time and there were prophecies of him spilling his blood so - for the story to be consistent, it kind of had to happen. I don’t see a problem, as far as it being a rational story. Thus far, it is not preposterous.

I’m not telling you anything new, I just don’t see what convinces you it is preposterous. But the modern Christian interpretation certainly is.

So glad to see you back.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 10:15 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

First thing, it's not necessary to completely understand what someone else truly believes in order to criticize aspects of that belief, such as the practical ramifications of rejecting vaccination for religious reasons.

So then it's not necessary to completely understand pro-life abortion views and/or the experience of a pregnant woman seeking abortion in order to criticize/prohibit the use of abortion as birth control?

Quote:
Secondly, many non-believers did believe at one time and eventually were able to see their former beliefs from a different perspective and came to reject a supernatural interpretation of their religious experience.

If they came to reject it, they didn't understand/experience it in the same way as people who don't reject it, do/did they?

Think of it in terms of your vaccine example: the people who reject vaccination probably think of others who maintain faith in vaccination as naive and superstitious at the expense of their immune system health.

Does the fact that they believed in vaccination before rejecting it make their understanding of vaccination equal to those who do not reject vaccination?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 11:34 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
The story...the myth...is preposterous. The "John 3:13" is an abomination. Imagine a god saying, "I will forgive you for offending me, but first you have to torture and kill my son."

Don’t want to question your qualifications but how did you get that from these only two possibilities? Or was there a typo?

John 3:13 KJV
[13] And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

1 John 3:13 KJV
[13] Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you.


Oops! Not a typo, Leadfoot...a mistake. I meant John 3:16. Not sure how the 13 got into my mind.

My bad.

Quote:
You have a point on 'blood sacrifice'. I get that, but the idea behind it looks like a practice allowing man to show, in physical form, his recognition of God.
The story says that Jesus (and some kind of rebirth) changed the way Man and God were to interact. The sacrifice custom was in practice for a long time and there were prophecies of him spilling his blood so - for the story to be consistent, it kind of had to happen. I don’t see a problem, as far as it being a rational story. Thus far, it is not preposterous.

I’m not telling you anything new, I just don’t see what convinces you it is preposterous. But the modern Christian interpretation certainly is.

So glad to see you back.


Sin...essentially is anything a human does that offends his/her GOD.

So for a GOD to "forgive" those sins (redemption) on condition that the GOD's only begotten son be tortured and then killed...

...does seem to me to be preposterous.

That particular myth is about as screwed up (in my opinion) as a god who carries the sun through the heavens in a chariot.

Apparently you do not find it that way...which is okay with me.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 11:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Sin...essentially is anything a human does that offends his/her GOD.

You're misconstruing God as a subjective being with arbitrary sensibilities that get offended or not based on something akin to personal opinions or values.

Sin only 'offends' to the extent that people are aware of it. Let's say someone kills someone else and it doesn't offend anyone (unlikely example, I know, but an easy one for illustrating the point).

Even if no one is offended by an act of killing, it still causes death. In the Bible it says, "the wages of sin is death," because sin is whatever causes harm, destruction, etc.

If you worship Satan or some other 'dark lord,' sin doesn't offend him/her; quite the opposite. But even if sin pleases your personal lord, it still does harm, causes destruction/death/etc. That is its effect.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 11:47 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
So then it's not necessary to completely understand pro-life abortion views and/or the experience of a pregnant woman seeking abortion in order to criticize/prohibit the use of abortion as birth control?

No, it's not. Obviously, very few of them do.
Quote:

If they came to reject it, they didn't understand/experience it in the same way as people who don't reject it, do/did they?

They very well might have, as some people's convictions evolve over time.
Quote:
Think of it in terms of your vaccine example...

That's not a good example as resistance to contracting a disease with or without vaccination is quantifiable and a vaccine's effectiveness can be demonstrated by individuals and in society as a whole.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 12:38 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Sin...essentially is anything a human does that offends his/her GOD.

You're misconstruing God as a subjective being with arbitrary sensibilities that get offended or not based on something akin to personal opinions or values.

Sin only 'offends' to the extent that people are aware of it. Let's say someone kills someone else and it doesn't offend anyone (unlikely example, I know, but an easy one for illustrating the point).

Even if no one is offended by an act of killing, it still causes death. In the Bible it says, "the wages of sin is death," because sin is whatever causes harm, destruction, etc.


If you worship Satan or some other 'dark lord,' sin doesn't offend him/her; quite the opposite. But even if sin pleases your personal lord, it still does harm, causes destruction/death/etc. That is its effect.


Respectfully as possible, L, I am not misconstruing anything.

A "sin" is something that offends a GOD...a transgression, if you will, against the sensibilities of that GOD.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 12:52 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

A "sin" is something that offends a GOD...a transgression, if you will, against the sensibilities of that GOD.




That’s a starting point, but the debate has moved on since then. We’ve got the seven deadly sins all of which are harmful regardless of whether one believes in a higher power or whether one even exists.

I think the concept of sin moved way beyond narrow theological definitions a long time ago.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 01:12 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

A "sin" is something that offends a GOD...a transgression, if you will, against the sensibilities of that GOD.



That’s a starting point, but the debate has moved on since then. We’ve got the seven deadly sins all of which are harmful regardless of whether one believes in a higher power or whether one even exists.

I think the concept of sin moved way beyond narrow theological definitions a long time ago.


Okay, I agree, Izzy.

But in the context of what was being discussed when I made that statement...it was appropriate.

The discussion was about "redemption"...and contained a hypothetical that dealt specifically with the Christian GOD...and the conditions under which IT would forgive those "sins"...namely the torturing and killing of an individual.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 01:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Fair enough, I don’t pay any attention to what Ll says.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 01:55 pm
@Frank Apisa,
If you had not done do yet take a look at the Jefferson's Bible
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 01:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

Respectfully as possible, L, I am not misconstruing anything.

A "sin" is something that offends a GOD...a transgression, if you will, against the sensibilities of that GOD.

I think you're interpreting the concept of sin too narrowly, i.e. as if God was a subjective king or landlord whose opinions are more or less arbitrary.

God's universe is governed by ironclad laws of physics that determine the effects of the actions that cause them. If you kill someone, they die. If you steal from someone, they lose what you took. If you envy what someone else has, you suffer and/or provoke yourself into sinning against them.

Every sin causes harm that you can observe by putting yourself in the position of the victim. You might think that lying isn't a sin, but then someone lies to you and you realize it causes you harm in some way, maybe just wasting your time on something that you believed before you found out you were being deceived.

In any case, sins might be offensive to decent people; but they cause objective harm; measurable by experiencing the harm they cause. It's that simple. What goes around comes around, so just as you sin against others, others sin against you in kind. That's why in the Lord's Prayer it says, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 01:59 pm
@livinglava,
livinglava wrote:

hightor wrote:

Many critics of religious belief, be they atheists, agnostics, or heretics, have a very good understanding of it.

You can't completely understand something that someone else truly believes in unless you are able to also experience true belief in it too.

Take a simple example like a song that someone believes is truly prophetic, e.g. Imagine by John Lennon. You might understand the belief that without religion, there would be nothing to live or die for, and that would be liberating; but if you don't experience the same level of belief as the atheist who truly believes that war wouldn't happen if no one had any religion to live or die for, then you don't completely understand that faith in Lennon's Imagine as atheist prophecy.

You might be able to understand on a abstract level why atheists think Lennon's lyrics are right about religion causing war, but if you believe something different, you're not going to experience the same complete faith in that belief as the atheist.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 02:04 pm
@BillRM,
Hey Bill.

I have looked at it a bit.

Jefferson was a guy before his time. Been getting a bad rap in recent years. I know some of the regulars here are very negative towards him.

Hey...on the Internet, even Lincoln gets a lot of bad press.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Apr, 2020 02:06 pm
@livinglava,
Look at the context of the discussion we were having.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 02:14:24