57
   

Why do you suppose Jesus never condemned slavery?

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 05:16 am
@bobsal u1553115,
Quote:
Proverbs 29:11
11 Fools give full vent to their rage, but the wise bring calm in the end.

Yeah, but the same guy that wrote it said he had to give his heart to know that.
And even after getting screwed out of his heart, he said wisdom brought him vexation of spirit and knowledge gave him much misery. And yet he had no regrets for any of it.

You gotta love that guy. I do.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 06:03 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot, you posted:

Quote:
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.


I responded to that exactly.

Now you are saying you were not talking about what you were talking about???

What are we talking about?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 06:07 am
@bobsal u1553115,
bobsal u1553115 wrote:

Quote:
Redemption IS forgiveness.


Redemption is being in a state of grace?


Redemption is about being redeemed.

Jesus is known to Christians as "The Redeemer."

Supposedly his "sacrifice" "redeemed" humanity for having offended the God.

It is a twisted story...but makes for a very interesting myth.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 06:11 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
What are we talking about?

Thought I told you in my last reply. Let me go check.

On another side note:
Haven’t we had this conversation before?
Maybe four years or so ago?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 06:17 am
@Frank Apisa,
Yes, just checked. I did.
Here it is for reference:

Quote:
Frank A. 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.


Then I replied:
Quote:
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.


If you are saying that you now want to debate ‘Christianity', let me know. Although it sounds like you're pretty set on that, so no offense if you don’t care to.

0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 08:07 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
What are we talking about?

Thought I told you in my last reply. Let me go check.

On another side note:
Haven’t we had this conversation before?
Maybe four years or so ago?


I don't even remember what I had for dinner last night.

I responded to something you said, Leadfoot. Now you are saying we are not talking about what you said....which caused my response.

Perhaps it would be best is I ask a question I asked a long time ago:

Why do you suppose that Jesus never condemned slavery?

If we are finished with that...we could discuss whatever you want to discuss. Just start another thread discussing whatever it is you want to discuss. I promise to visit and participate.
livinglava
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 08:21 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
What are we talking about?

Thought I told you in my last reply. Let me go check.

On another side note:
Haven’t we had this conversation before?
Maybe four years or so ago?

I tried engaging him on things he says, such as defining sin as things that "offend God."

He doesn't want to think more deeply about anything he's saying because he has developed this dogmatic approach that he wants to use to propagate anti-Christianity.

Some people are totally faithful to Christianity, others to other religions, and some to their anti-religion dogma, whatever that may be.

The bolded words indicate how he his propagating mindless negative-reactionism toward Christian beliefs:
Quote:

Supposedly his "sacrifice" "redeemed" humanity for having offended the God.

It is a twisted story...but makes for a very interesting myth.

All these words and ways of phrasing indeed twist the meanings in a way that calls them into question, yet if you respond to him to clarify why the questioning is misplaced, he just tells you that your perspectives diverge and to go away.
So he's obviously not interested in questioning his own dogma, only propagating it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 08:45 am
Frank is a nasty internet bully who takes cheap shots at people from behind the protection of his screen--there's no doubt about that. However, as usual, you are peddling bullshit, in a prolix word salad.

Quote:
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"


From Lexico, a collaboration of Dictionary-dot-com and Oxford University Press

Quote:
1a: an offense against religious or moral law
b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible
it's a sin to waste food
c: an often serious shortcoming : FAULT
2a: transgression of the law of God
b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God


From Merriam-Webster

Quote:
1. transgression of divine law:
the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.


From Dictionary-dot-com

Of course, you and Frank, both, just like to argue, whether or not you know what the hell you're talking about, so I guess I should just advise you two to get a room, and leave it at that.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 10:51 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Of course, you and Frank, both, just like to argue, whether or not you know what the hell you're talking about, so I guess I should just advise you two to get a room, and leave it at that.

I've explained many times in many ways what things mean beyond their dictionary definitions. Definitions are helpful, but they are still pretty short and abstract so there is lots of room for misinterpretation.

Defining sin as an 'offense against God' is certainly true, but not in the way that offending a human being can occur due to the subjective biases of the individual being offended. E.g. if you don't like hippy-looking people, you could be offended by someone dressed as a hippy with flowers in their hair, long natural hair, etc. but that is not the same kind of offense as offending God.

Legal offenses come closer to the meaning of sin, but there is still a subjective human element, e.g. if you violate some arbitrary law you have committed an offense against the state, but you might not have actually caused any harm, aside from emboldening yourself and others to disregard the law.

Sins against God are more causal, however, because the universe/creation is a perfect machine without any wiggle-room. E.g. if you shoot someone, the bullet penetrate them and do damage to their organs. There are miracles that happen despite the clockwork of the universe, e.g. when someone gets shot and survives nonetheless, or when they get injured by their suffering is abated in some spiritual way that no one understands.

The laws of physics govern sin and its 'wages,' however, in that no action can occur without equal-and-opposite reaction, no object in motion can be stopped without interaction/friction with an external force. So there's no question when you run full speed into a wall that the wall is going to slam you with all the force you put into it by running into it. God might take mercy on you by letting you fall unconscious sooner rather than later, and your body might take the violence and heal better than it otherwise could have, and those things would all be miracles of mercy/grace, but nothing about the laws of physics that govern the mechanical cause and effect of smashing your body against a wall is abated or tweaked in any way. It's just that the overall situation, including your subjective experience of it, comes out in a way that is less bad than it could have been given the same causal factors.

Like snowflakes, no two situations are the same however similar they may appear; so you can call it "luck of the draw" when the situation that happens to you isn't as bad as it could have been if you were a slightly different snowflake, so to speak; but you can also call it mercy and grace from God. If you interpret in terms of intentional divine agency, you can feel gratitude, whereas if you just interpret it as "the luck of the draw," you won't experience any kind of love/compassion; so belief/faith in God allows you to experience love and compassion from things that happen beyond human control, and that is a good thing.

So in one sense, yes you can interpret sin as offense against God, but not in the sense that it is in some way arbitrary or that God chooses to punish you for things that you could otherwise just freely get away with devoid of cause-and-effect and the consequences that come with that. You can't run full speed into a wall and then curse God for punishing you; or rather you can, but it doesn't make any sense and it makes things worse because then you're going to experience that much more suffering than if you just sustained your injuries and felt love/compassion from God that you didn't get hurt even worse.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 11:18 am
You shovel more horseshit than a stableboy in Lexington, Kentucky. Classic entry-level university philosophy courses point out that vice is a transgression against one's self, crime is a transgression against society, and sin is a transgression against "god." Don't try to explain anything to me. You're just a long-winded blowhard with very little real knowledge and a run-away mouth.
Leadfoot
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 02:30 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I don't even remember what I had for dinner last night.

Yes! This is how you finished up last time. Thanks for refreshing my memory.
(Partial credit to Setanta also)


Quote:
I responded to something you said, Leadfoot. Now you are saying we are not talking about what you said....which caused my response.

Perhaps it would be best is I ask a question I asked a long time ago:

Why do you suppose that Jesus never condemned slavery?

I shall respect your authorship of the OP and answer you directly.

Because he had something more important to talk about.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 06:17 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

You shovel more horseshit than a stableboy in Lexington, Kentucky. Classic entry-level university philosophy courses point out that vice is a transgression against one's self, crime is a transgression against society, and sin is a transgression against "god." Don't try to explain anything to me. You're just a long-winded blowhard with very little real knowledge and a run-away mouth.

Classifying 'vice,' 'crime,' and 'sin,' as transgressions against 'self,' 'society,' and 'God,' respectively doesn't tell you anything about what they mean and what they are any more than it tells you about the relationship between self, society, and God.

Do you think you understand things when you just classify them, or do you realize that classification is only a step in the direction of meaning and not meaningful in its own right?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sun 26 Apr, 2020 07:01 pm
@livinglava,
I know that I understand things, and that classification is just the first step in that understanding. I also understand that you have nothing coherent to contribute to the discussion, as is almost always the case, because you just spout more prolix word salad, and nothing of substance.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2020 07:04 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
I don't even remember what I had for dinner last night.

Yes! This is how you finished up last time. Thanks for refreshing my memory.
(Partial credit to Setanta also)


Quote:
I responded to something you said, Leadfoot. Now you are saying we are not talking about what you said....which caused my response.

Perhaps it would be best is I ask a question I asked a long time ago:


Why do you suppose that Jesus never condemned slavery?

I shall respect your authorship of the OP and answer you directly.

Because he had something more important to talk about.


Ahhh...so you think it was because Jesus was not good at multi-tasking.

Okay. I see.
livinglava
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2020 07:52 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I know that I understand things, and that classification is just the first step in that understanding. I also understand that you have nothing coherent to contribute to the discussion, as is almost always the case, because you just spout more prolix word salad, and nothing of substance.

You just ridicule me on a general level because you don't like my overall worldview and want me to go away.

Either that or you really can't read what I write.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2020 08:03 am
@livinglava,
How childishly egocentric and clownish--I can read what you write, and I can see it is meaningless drivel.
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2020 08:17 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

How childishly egocentric and clownish--I can read what you write, and I can see it is meaningless drivel.

I don't know how your mind works, but obviously I'm not going to be able to explain anything to someone whose mind is closed to following my explanation for whatever reason.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2020 08:31 am
@livinglava,
Your "explanations" are completely without merit. But sure, claim someone who doesn't buy your bullsh*t is close-minded, I'm sure that makes you feel superior. Rolling Eyes
livinglava
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2020 08:55 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Your "explanations" are completely without merit. But sure, claim someone who doesn't buy your bullsh*t is close-minded, I'm sure that makes you feel superior. Rolling Eyes

Is everything about superiority and inferiority to you?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Apr, 2020 09:27 am
@livinglava,
I don't intend to get into petty squabbling with you. Your comment about being close-minded suggests your moral-intellectual superiority. What a crock of sh*t. It's not me with that problem, it's you.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 05:09:45