Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Look at the context of the discussion we were having.

That's too vague. I'm not going to go studying past posts trying to figure out what you mean.

Why can't you just make your point explicitly?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

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.

Living Lava wrote:

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[/color]. 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.

And I think you're giving God, if he exists, way too little credit. To create something as complex as the universe, which works on a (to us) incomprehensible network of interacting 'rules' - he would by nature be incredibly principled, and the most knowledgeable being around regarding cause of affect. Add in ominiscience, and he also knows your heart. There is very little room for arbitary opinion/interpretation by him, as you claim.

I rather agree with Frank. I've also seen theologists claim that Sin is anything that takes you further away from God, which is almost the same thing.

The affects of 'wrong' actions on people can be subjective:
-Some people can envy, going 'wow I would like that', then not think anything further of it, and get on with a productive life. At the other end of the scale, some people fixate, and become bitter and jealous, which can lead to other wrongs (stealing and murder). So, the results are subjective for this worded sin, rather than ironclad rules of physics.

- Some lies (usually of the white lie sort), never affect another person, and debatably affect the person saying them little to nothing at all (as most believe that everyone is entitled to their privacy, seeing such as completely justified). At the other end of the scale, other lies can destroy lives of both the speaker and the receiver. So, the results are also subjective results of this worded sin, rather than ironclad rules of physics.

- you could look at verbal abuse as a sin (hate, verbal violence). It would be hard to argue that it wasn't a sin, as this has destroyed countless lives, and the quality of even more peoples lives. The results though, aren't ironclad. Some people know exactly who they are, and shrug off nastiness from people, while others (if the exact same thing was said to them), crumple. So subjective results. Some who deal with conflict well, end up shaking hands having gained empathy and understanding, while others end up in a fist fight with the same speaker, so once again subjective results, rather than ironclad rules of physics.

Franks view works well.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

The affects of 'wrong' actions on people can be subjective:
-Some people can envy, going 'wow I would like that', then not think anything further of it, and get on with a productive life. At the other end of the scale, some people fixate, and become bitter and jealous, which can lead to other wrongs (stealing and murder). So, the results are subjective for this worded sin, rather than ironclad rules of physics.

In the narrow and short-term view of cause-and-effect, it's possible to find examples of sin that don't immediately/directly cause (much) harm, but if you look at the bigger picture, you can trace the genealogy of sins shaping your life as you move through your life course.

Think, for example, about the alcoholic who starts by having a few drinks on weekends and ends up dying 20 years later of cirrhosis. It didn't seem like they were harming themselves or anyone else by having a few drinks then, but ultimately the addiction grew and finally shortened their life by decades.

Quote:

- Some lies (usually of the white lie sort), never affect another person, and debatably affect the person saying them little to nothing at all (as most believe that everyone is entitled to their privacy, seeing such as completely justified). At the other end of the scale, other lies can destroy lives of both the speaker and the receiver. So, the results are also subjective results of this worded sin, rather than ironclad rules of physics.

You can whitewash sins in this way, or you can take the more sobering route of planning for the worst and hoping for the best. Obviously God is merciful in giving grace for all the sins that could have turned out worse but didn't. Nevertheless, sin gradually breaks down our material bodies and kills us, which is why we need to be reborn of spirit.

Quote:

- you could look at verbal abuse as a sin (hate, verbal violence). It would be hard to argue that it wasn't a sin, as this has destroyed countless lives, and the quality of even more peoples lives. The results though, aren't ironclad. Some people know exactly who they are, and shrug off nastiness from people, while others (if the exact same thing was said to them), crumple. So subjective results. Some who deal with conflict well, end up shaking hands having gained empathy and understanding, while others end up in a fist fight with the same speaker, so once again subjective results, rather than ironclad rules of physics.

Practically everything is a sin. Consider this verse from Ecclesiastes:

Quote:

Ecclesiastes 7:16
The Limits of Human Wisdom
15In my futile life I have seen both of these: A righteous man perishing in his righteousness, and a wicked man living long in his wickedness. 16Do not be overly righteous, and do not make yourself too wise. Why should you destroy yourself? 17Do not be excessively wicked, and do not be a fool. Why should you die before your time?…

There are so many sins, we can never achieve perfection no matter how much we strive. We need forgiveness, grace, and salvation. By faith alone we are saved and not by works or deeds.

2 Replies

@livinglava,

You are talking about an imaginary being with no more claim to being real then the god Zeus have.

Now as far as this Christian god being merciful this monster of a make up god is said to had drown almost all the humans on the planet including children, an infants in the arms of their mothers.

Such a being whether real or makeup have zero rights to judge me for my sins or any other human as even Hitler was a boy scout compare to this god.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

Think, for example, about the alcoholic who starts by having a few drinks on weekends and ends up dying 20 years later of cirrhosis. It didn't seem like they were harming themselves or anyone else by having a few drinks then, but ultimately the addiction grew and finally shortened their life by decades.

In this example you avoid the subjective realm of words and thoughts (lies, abuse, and envy in this discuss), instead using an example from the direct realm of cause and effect (a physical action done over time, having a physical result).

Quote:

In the narrow and short-term view of cause-and-effect, it's possible to find examples of sin that don't immediately/directly cause (much) harm, but if you look at the bigger picture, you can trace the genealogy of sins shaping your life as you move through your life course.

Think, for example, about the alcoholic who starts by having a few drinks on weekends and ends up dying 20 years later of cirrhosis. It didn't seem like they were harming themselves or anyone else by having a few drinks then, but ultimately the addiction grew and finally shortened their life by decades.

In this 'explanation' that you provide, you ignore the realm of thought/words (which is where I offered subjective examples), and ignore one off events (and even limited number events), to use an extreme example that is physically done over and over again for many years...and example, as mentioned, that is one of continuous physical actions resulting in physical results.

We have no argument in the physical result of such drinking. Yet, basically, you've avoided the subjectiveness of particular sins (involving words, emotions etc)...though it doesn't seem you did this on purpose.

Quote:

You can whitewash sins in this way

Whitewash sin? Do you mean explain how the effects of certain sins are subjective to the person? You made a claim that there was an ironclad rules of physics that determined what sin was. I offered how your 'ironclad physics' was not so, and that much was subjective. Your line of thought offers no arguments against that subjectiveness.

Quote:

Nevertheless, sin gradually breaks down our material bodies and kills us.

We disagree on this matter.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You are talking about an imaginary being with no more claim to being real then the god Zeus have.

Do you believe in the laws of physics governing the entire universe. If so, can you understand how attributing the laws of cause and effect to a supreme being is not just an arbitrary cultural construction, as you are implying by mentioning "imaginary beings like Zeus?"

[qsuote]Now as far as this Christian god being merciful this monster of a make up god is said to had drown almost all the humans on the planet including children, an infants in the arms of their mothers.[/quote]
So do you believe in God and resent Him for all the tragic things that occur in nature, or do you not believe such a thing as God exists? Which do YOU believe?

Quote:

Such a being whether real or makeup have zero rights to judge me for my sins or any other human as even Hitler was a boy scout compare to this god.

Does lightning have a right to strike the plane you're flying in and cause it to crash into the ocean? Does a forest fire have the right to kill all the people, animals, trees, and other organisms it does? Does DNA have the right to mutate and cause cancer?

Hitler was a human being. Did he have the power to stop the genocide or would Himmler have prevented him even if he wanted to?

What you're implying is that God has the power to stop a massive flood or other natural disasters. Even if He does, why would he stop humans from reaping the effects of their actions? If the great flood described in the story of Noah was caused by the culmination of all the human sin that was going on prior, then God indeed took mercy on humans by providing Noah with the foresight to build an ark to weather the disaster.

The story of Noah is really interesting, because when humans behave like animals (worse actually, since we have the capacity to know better and exercise self-control), their sins are more destructive than the harm caused by animals because we are so smart and powerful.

So if we cut down all the forests and cause the Earth to dry up until the desert heat causes so much evaporation of the oceans that the resulting rain causes immense flooding that drowns lots and lots of humans, don't we deserve the effects of what we caused? How and why should God spare us from the effects of our own actions exactly? By interfering in the laws of physics that cause the flooding?

God shows us mercy and grace in many ways, but part of it is that we often survive minor incidences and learn from them to foresee future threats, which we can then prepare for. The story of Noah's flood is ultimately about how God helped Noah foresee the flood and design/build an ark to save lives. Isn't that a miracle? A silver lining around a dark cloud of a very bad situation?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

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.

OK, so now that we're on the same page/verse:

Still not there on how you get 'preposterous' from that. Especially after I already agreed with you on 'Redemption'. But let's continue.

There must be some disconnect between our interpretation of either that verse or 'Redemption'. Agreed, 'your' redemption IS preposterous. Both aspects you have mentioned are equally bad - the silliness of an easily offended God and the absurdity of Jesus being a whipping boy for us. Who would ever admire such an arbitrary God as that. Did I get that right?

So, I assume the difference must be in the verse.

John:3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Here is my gestalt view of that verse and what led up to it. Not trying to school you, just trying to see where we differ.

There was a God who for his own reasons (I assume he wanted company of a kind that he lacked) created Mankind. Like us, he had no appetite for the company of slaves, he wanted only voluntary company. So he gave them the minimum set of abilities to thrive here and set them free in the little world he created for the purpose. And waited and hoped they would 'evolve' into the sons he wanted. He knew it was a long shot but you don't get Seal Team 6 by sending kids to Disneyworld.

Things went wrong several times and he was vexed because he was heavily invested emotionally in this project. Came close to wiping the board clean a couple of times but mankind hung on by the tiniest thread.

Eventually man came to virtual universal recognition of God's existence and a few good men started to come out of the process. But then the very institutions set up to find God were corrupted and a new way to separate man from God was found (by 'us'?, by Satan?) The promising start of understanding was threatened again.

God then decided to try another way, but he still stuck to the 'volunteers only' principle. This time there would be a man to live the example and prove his bonafides. The events summed up in John 3:16 looks like God's last gasp effort to save the project. He knew the odds were not good but he cared enough to give up his only real company up to that point - his only begotten son (at least for awhile). His son may not have been keen on the idea but he always defered to his father out of love and respect for the one who begot him.

I mean what the **** Frank, as a piece of literature, what the hell is wrong with that story/myth/whatever? Am I even close on it or is there a flaw?

No technical problem with your definition of 'sin' but it has an off key connotation of arbitrariness.
I see a lot of depth in the verse 'Whatsoever is not of faith, is sin'. If you honestly believe what you are doing is right, God will not take offence, even if you are dead wrong. We apparently get a pass on sincerity. Later in the story there is a bit about being a time to straighten out any misunderstandings, but that's much later.

**** man, he's bent over backwards for us, what's not to like about that? What is preposterous there?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot...the thing I see as preposterous is that according to John, the GOD was willing to "forgive" humans for "offending" IT...but only on the condition that humans first torture and kill IT's "only begotten son."

You may not find that preposterous, and I respect your right to do so. BUT I DO FIND IT PREPOSTEROUS.

You also may disagree with my interpretation of John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"...

...as the basis for my saying the "forgiveness" was conditioned on that sacrifice, but if you do...just what in the hell is John mentioning it here for...especially in the way he is mentioning it?

2 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Look at the context of the discussion we were having.

That's too vague. I'm not going to go studying past posts trying to figure out what you mean.

Why can't you just make your point explicitly?

This was discussed on the previous page. If you are asking me to chew my words a second time to save you the trouble of going back one page...I must decline.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Leadfoot...the thing I see as preposterous is that according to John, the GOD was willing to "forgive" humans for "offending" IT...but only on the condition that humans first torture and kill IT's "only begotten son."

You may not find that preposterous, and I respect your right to do so. BUT I DO FIND IT PREPOSTEROUS.

You also may disagree with my interpretation of John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"...

...as the basis for my saying the "forgiveness" was conditioned on that sacrifice, but if you do...just what in the hell is John mentioning it here for...especially in the way he is mentioning it?

What it means is that as sinners, we cause death. If you read all the details of events leading up to the death of Jesus, there are lots of sins. Jesus was ultimately killed because some people wanted Him dead but couldn't put Him to death according to their laws, and other people didn't mind killing Him, but they didn't actually see any fault in Him.

So right there are two sins: 1) wanting someone else to do your dirty work for you because you think then you're not responsible; and 2) killing, but then not even because you actually believe the victim deserves it.

There are many other sins as well, and of course there is the fact that another prisoner was released as a favor who was found guilty, while Jesus was found innocent but nevertheless killed in the place of the guilty person released.

So if you study these things and you see a pattern that it's possible for innocent people to take punishment for others that are guilty, that is scapegoating.

So what Jesus' story is teaching, among other things, is that people who are scapegoated and suffer for things that we ourselves deserve to suffer for as our own sins, that we are really guilty of those things and deserve punishment but that God forgives us when we don't get punished.

Knowing that should make you uncomfortable knowing that you deserve punishment and that someone else is getting punished in your place, but you are nevertheless forgiven and saved from punishment.

What's more, you cannot insist that you deserve the punishment and take it, because your sins deserve more punishment than you can actually afford by giving your own life.

So we are in a state of unrepayable debt, i.e. unforgivable. We are unsalvageable sinners. . . and yet we are forgiven and saved and living in grace.

So it's not that God chooses to punish us for arbitrary sins. The sins that are committed by us and our ancestors are simply beyond reconciliation. . . and yet we haven't all destroyed ourselves as a species as a result of the evil that people are perpetrating against each other all the time throughout history.

So Christianity is saying, "don't suffer in shame and guilt for this immense privilege of escaping the grave that you've dug for yourself and that your ancestors have dug for you with their evil deeds; but rather accept and rejoice in the good news that we are forgiven and saved/redeemed so that we can change our ways and start doing right instead of wrong."

The reason you have to accept Jesus is because you have to realize the gravity of sin and how incapable we are of sufficiently atoning for sin and ending it that way. Sin is just something that goes beyond us. No one can stop sin in the world, no matter how righteous they are. Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr., etc. etc. nor Jesus Christ stopped sin from continuing after their deaths; but Jesus brought the message of eternal life, taught about spiritual rebirth while alive, and then continued teaching about it after being resurrected. So we should accept Christ and accept eternal life in salvation/redemption from sin, go on living in the world but not being 'of the world' in the sense of giving into its temptations. We aren't perfect, so we always go on sinning in one way or another, but we can at least keep the faith and keep trying to confess and repent to God instead of living in denial for the sake of our pride.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Ah, there's the rub. I don’t see anything about forgiveness, conditional or otherwise, in John 3:16 and you do.
I can’t help but think that your POV is affected by past religious associations rather than the words in verse itself.

As you say, it’s OK to disagree, just wanted to know what exactly it was that we disagreed about.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

Ah, there's the rub. I don’t see anything about forgiveness, conditional or otherwise, in John 3:16 and you do.
I can’t help but think that your POV is affected by past religious associations rather than the words in verse itself.

As you say, it’s OK to disagree, just wanted to know what exactly it was that we disagreed about.

The entire of Christianity is based on the notion of "redemption" by dint of the "sacrifice" of Jesus.

How can you say you "don't see anything about forgiveness" in the citation?

Redemption IS forgiveness.

3 Replies

@livinglava,

Have a good life, LL. We're too far apart to attempt a crossing.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Redemption IS forgiveness.

Forgiveness is when you are no longer held accountable.

Redemption is getting to go back to being a good person after having succumbed to sin.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The entire of Christianity is based on the notion of "redemption" by dint of the "sacrifice" of Jesus.

How can you say you "don't see anything about forgiveness" in the citation?

Redemption IS forgiveness.

Now I’m not sure you actually read what I wrote.
I’m not discussing ‘Christianity', I thought I made that clear.

I thought we were discussing the Bible story as a piece of literature, and whether or not there was an interpretation of it that was coherent and not preposterous.

If I wanted to debate religious dogma I’d do it with livinglava.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Redemption IS forgiveness.

Redemption is being in a state of grace?

2 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Quote:
Redemption IS forgiveness.

Redemption is being in a state of grace?

You can look up the meanings of these words, you know.

Grace and mercy are related concepts. You deserve punishment, but it's being withheld or abated.

Redemption is taking something bad and making it good or finding something good in it.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

You can look up the meanings of these words, you know.

I understand these terms quite well. If I am redeemed I am in a state of Grace. I am redeemed through Christ's Grace. Forgiveness is is only possible from Grace.

I'm Lutheran and this is what I spent year's learning for Confirmation. May I recommend Luther's Small Catechism to you? I would be glad to send one to you free of charge, I'll also cover the postage.

Proverbs 29:11
11 Fools give full vent to their rage, but the wise bring calm in the end.

2 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

I understand these terms quite well. If I am redeemed I am in a state of Grace. I am redeemed through Christ's Grace. Forgiveness is is only possible from Grace.

God's grace is indeed in the fact that we don't reap as bad as we and our ancestors have sewn in this world.
Forgiveness is possible without grace, e.g. if you steal something from someone, they might be able to forgive you because they don't want to hold a grudge; but then they still expect you to repay what you stole and go through punitive discipline in accordance with your crime.
Some people don't understand how you can forgive and still exercise punitive discipline, but the purpose of the discipline isn't to judge/condemn but to correct, and I'm not talking about using "correction" as a euphemism for torturing someone in retaliation for crime you hate them for committing, which is obviously different than forgiveness.

Quote:

I'm Lutheran and this is what I spent year's learning for Confirmation. May I recommend Luther's Small Catechism to you? I would be glad to send one to you free of charge, I'll also cover the postage.

I might google it, since I've never read it. Thanks for suggesting and your offer to send, though it's not necessary.

Quote:

Proverbs 29:11
11 Fools give full vent to their rage, but the wise bring calm in the end.

Good point. We would all be better off with more rage-abatement, wouldn't we?

Peace and blessings.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Amen. We all fall short. Thank G*d for Christ's Grace.

0 Replies

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know