• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion Slavery and the Bible

Sabro,

We already discussed the "The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests" a while ago. Why are you going off on a diversion when it is your hypocracy that is all over the religion threads now?

Why aren`t you answering the question: Is it prohibited anywhere in the Bible to be a hypocrite? Is there a Law or Commandment against it?
 
There are several teachings against hypocracy. In particular whenever Jesus ran into a sect called the Pharisees, he reserved his harshest criticism.

I remember asking about TPoECoI, but I do not remember what the response was, or if there was a response. Can you repeat your answer? I don't know what it is.

What have I done that you feel is hypocritical?
 
sabro said:
SFV- What you said is largely accurate. "Spiritual freedom" is what Paul described in those verses. It would be available only to believers and it would come from the New Testament and not the Old Testament.
Click to expand...

Why would Xtians only have spiritual freedom? To assert that sounds arrogant.

It is free from the "Law" and its consequences- primarily death.
Click to expand...

Could you go into a little more detail on this?

How is spiritual freedom free from the law? Isn`t obeying the Law, BGod`s rules for us, what makes us 'walk' with him or pleases him?

Also, I think I had asked you to tell me what is meant by "spiritual freedom." Perhaps you did and I just missed it. If so, my apologies, just please direct me to where you explained what it was.

Without understanding what you mean by that term, it hard for me to test what you say about it only being available to "believers" sounds reasonable or not.

... If you don't believe, (probably through the positive action of rejection) you are still subject to the law and its consequences. (If you are entirely uninformed, you may not be liable to the law anyway.)
Click to expand...

Jesus told everyone that the Law was in place, to be followed, and not one jot of it would change, and that it would be easier for Heaven to pass away before the Law would change.

Now, I know Xtians believe that Jesus saves us through grace from the consequences of breaking the Law, but saving through grace does not imply that the Law is not to be followed -- as Jesus says below. So, according to the addendom to the Jewish Scriptures, while we may be saved from the affects of the Law through Jesus, we are still required to follow it while here on Earth. Look at:

Luke 16:16-17
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. ..."
 
Since Jesus fulfilled the law, believers who accept His sacrifice are no longer subject to the consequences of the law. Although this frees them to behave as they would wish, and not follow the law- their directions should be directed by the holy spirit. Since the sacrifice for any transgression has already been made, the law is fulfilled and justice is satisfied. This is the doctrine of propitiation.
 
The imperfect Levitical laws were given to the Israelites first as a guide, and second as a measure that they were to attempt to fulfil. The Israelites thought, hey, we can attain eternal life by living this law, but after centuries of failing to live up to the imperfect law, would they realize upon recieving the perfect law of love, just how much they needed God's redemption, and that they really couldn't do it on their own.

I however still wonder why God would choose but one people, seemingly condemning the rest to hell by default
 
There is a whole other doctrine covering the Soverignty of God on why he chooses some and not others. It was not because they were the largest or strongest or best nation, but rather the opposite- that salvation should come to the world through a nation of former slaves.

The PoECoI- I had to look up on Wikipedia. I'm not certain why SVF was so evasive about. I sincerely had not heard of it: "Equal consideration of interests" is the name of a moral principle that states that one should both include all affected interests when calculating the rightness of an action and weigh those interests equally.

It seems like I could use it to justify nearly anyting and if I extend it passed our "species boundary" it implies that the fleas on my dog or the mice in my cupboard have the same right to live as I do.
 
sabro said:
Since Jesus fulfilled the law, believers who accept His sacrifice are no longer subject to the consequences of the law. Although this frees them to behave as they would wish, and not follow the law- their directions should be directed by the holy spirit. Since the sacrifice for any transgression has already been made, the law is fulfilled and justice is satisfied. This is the doctrine of propitiation.
Click to expand...

It may free people from the consequences of the Law, but it still does not free them from having to follow the law. The two are different.

Why don`t you believe the central figure of your religion, Jesus? He is telling you that not one letter of the law is to change. Clearly, he is telling you that the Law is to be followed. Sure, through Him, the consequences for breaking the laws are mitigated, but they are still there to be followed.

Luke 16:16-17
"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. ..."

Sabro, where in the Bible does it say we are free to behave as we wish and that we do not have to follow the Law? Where did Jesus say that?

He clearly tells us that the Law is still in place.
 
Revenant: The imperfect Levitical laws were given to the Israelites first as a guide, and second as a measure that they were to attempt to fulfil. The Israelites thought, hey, we can attain eternal life by living this law, but after centuries of failing to live up to the imperfect law, would they realize upon recieving the perfect law of love, just how much they needed God's redemption, and that they really couldn't do it on their own.

I however still wonder why God would choose but one people, seemingly condemning the rest to hell by default
Click to expand...

Rom 2:10-12
...but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.
All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law.

Yes, BGOD is not supposed to show favoritism. But look at the above. Just by granting order for "honor" and "peace" there is favoritism (i.e. first the Jew, and then the Gentile). This and what you are referring to above are clear contradictions of the bolded.

The Law is still coveted in Romans. It has not been done away with. Jesus never said the Law was done away with. He said it is easier for Heaven to pass away before one letter of the Law were to fall. What does that mean to you? That is very emphatic.
 
sabro said:
There is a whole other doctrine covering the Soverignty of God on why he chooses some and not others. It was not because they were the largest or strongest or best nation, but rather the opposite- that salvation should come to the world through a nation of former slaves.
Click to expand...

Still is favoritism. We are told God does not show favoritism. It is a contradiction in the strongest sense of the word.
 
Obviously you misunderstand the text and are trying to build a doctrine from a single verse. Like Christian fundamentalists, you are making a fundamental error.
 
I should have written more: In Act 10:34-5, Duet 10:17, Romand 2:11, Galations 2:6 and James 2:1-2... When God is said to be "no respecter of men" and showing no favoritism, a quick look at the context will tell you that God is not impressed by riches, by your "nation", or by your title. In each of the above texts the authors meaning is clear from the context...Nothing more or less: He chooses who he will. Again a verse taken out of context should not be used to build a doctrine or in your attempt to disprove the bible.
 
Brother Sabro, what you have written in post #51 is no refutation of BGOD not showing favoritism. You merely posted more verses that underscored that point. Sure, BGOD shows no favoritism to titles and social status -- but that is a subset of ?gno favoritism,?h period. Those fall under, ?gGod shows no favoritism?h declaration and in no way are meant to be exclusive of anything else.

Yes, ?ghe chooses who he will.?h Succinctly well said. He showed favoritism by making some of his ?gchildren?h his chosen people destined for greatness while excluding others -- and in fact unfairly. Surely those who had the benefit of JSOG walking amongst them, hearing his words first hand were shown favoritism -- for they had gotten his words uncorrupted without centuries of errors in translations. Why didn`t BGOD make an unlosable, undestructible, BWOG with the perfect key to let all languages understand clearly and accurately what the ?gBad News?h (keep in mind, all slaves must have felt being encouraged to not agitate and to just accept their social status was ?gbad?h news) was?

You have refuted nothing with your verse list, and may I remind you, you didn`t even take the time to analyze them to support your point. Please try harder because those who are lurking and wavering in His flock could be pulled away.
 
I sincerely doubt that anyone will turn away because of the pale postings you have written here...

Again, you read, but miss the point. God is sovereingn. God chooses whomever he pleases- without respect or favoritism... Seems pretty clear cut, straight forward and the opposite of the meaning that you have derived. There is a pattern here of your purposeful misunderstandings. I again implore you to learn something...anything of the bible before you comment or at least do the barest amount of research (the Wikipedia site you maligned is a good start.).
 
Those saved have won a lottery of sorts, and like a true lottery, no one can increase the chances of winning it, God simply chooses. If Calvinism were true, then the saved would be among the luckiest and most grateful people around.
 
SVF: you are misinterpreting the whole "favoritism" thing. It doesn't mean that God does not judge or discriminate... only that he does these things not based upon the physical/temporal...God is not impressed. You can't buy him off. He is unlikely to favor you simply because of your earthly status or your tribe. He will pick whom he wills for whatever reason he wants to. One person interprets a single word in a unique way and then finds that it is inconsistent with the definition given by others. How shocking...
Check out tectonics.com...
Acts 10:34-5 Then Peter began to speak: ?gI now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.?h
Note the distinction here: God accepts those who ?gfear him and do what is right?h - so that acceptance is not the result of favoritism, but of merit in God?fs service. Similarly, in the rest of the citations, the point is that men are not accepted or given special privileges based on their own "virtues", but rather, in their attitudes towards God and the resultant behavior. Further, all of the NT cites use, or use a variation of, the word prosopoleptes, which means "an accepter of face" -- let's see what this means in human terms:
James 2:1-2 My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

"Respect of persons" has nothing to do with covenantal agreements, or even judgment based on merit, but with judgments based on our own suppositions and deductions. (The Hebrew in Deut. 10:17 for "persons" likewise means "countenance" or "face".) In other words, it means God does not take people at "face value" but searches them out. There is no relevance to the matter of the choice of Jews for service; they were chosen because their forefathers, and they, were obedient.
Click to expand...
I hope this is helpful.
Thusfar you have advanced several statements without substantiating a single one. You make propositions and accusations which tend to be either simple misinterpretations, passages taken out of context or with simple explanations, or amatuerish speculation and conjecture. You spice it up with insults and ridicule, add in a few overly broad statements about Christianity and then claim to be some master debater. It is time to put up or ....well you know. Anyone can throw out random and thin allegations- threading them together into a strong argument takes a little more work.

You continue to lack even a basic grasp for scripture and doctrine. (Notice I made no blanket statement about Athiests or anti-Christians being ignorant-- that would be wrong.) It would serve you well to visit that Wikipedia site (Keywords: sovereignty and favoritism) first, or to open a concordance. I would ask that you would please refrain from ridiculing Christianity, the Christian God, Christians, and the Bible- including inventing acronyms, using stereotypical generalizations, creating insulting pet names or for that matter attempting any type of "witticisms" until you have a basic understanding of the doctrines, beliefs, and methods for studying scriptures.

Is this "running for cover?"... I know that I am "of little concern" to you... and you "know which buttons to push." Like a "chessmaster" you certainly are playing me brilliantly. I remain a "pond"(sic) that you can toy with. I am uncertain why you broke your promise not to respond to my posts anymore, but thankful that you have dropped your decietful and deceptive use of my quote out of context. I remain in your service, glad to be of whatever help I can.
 
Last edited:
Brother Sabro,

What parts of the above post are your words and what parts are the plagerized parts from the Tectonics site you mentioned? Portions of it seem to be just copied and pasted without you specifically noting that it was quoted from the site. Where those parts begin and end and where your remarks begin are your responsibility to clearly delineate -- not the readers' to guess at.

Please read it yourself, internalize it, and post it in your own words so that I can address you on it, not an author that is not visiting the forum and available for discussion on the matter of their writings. You as a school administrator should specifically respect original works, quoting them properly, and not put them forth in a manner that could allow others to believe you wrote something which you did not.

Kind of reminds me of "hijacking" something that is not our own so that it can suit our own nefarious motives. Just because that was done centuries ago of works that you cherrish, does not mean you should or have the right to engage in similar "hijacking" endeavors in our times today. It is a bad example for students whom you are a leader to, and should be something you should be a little embarrassed for -- if not ashamed.
 
sabro said:
I sincerely doubt that anyone will turn away because of the pale postings you have written here...
Click to expand...

At least mine are my own and not plagerized.
 
Thank you, You are in fact correct: I did in fact quote, you will note the reference and the quotes in the original post as well as the source...but I didn't put it in the nice blue box. I have corrected that. The paragraph above it is my summary of what it says. It is pretty close to what I said before in a previous post. I am neither embarrased or ashamed of the error- as it was easily correctable. Also this is not an academic paper- I have not included ALA footnotes as required of my students. This is more casual- click look find. My motives were not nefarious in any way. (If so, why give the reference?) I shall endeavor to use blue boxes in the future.

There are far more references on this topic if you are interested.

At least I didn't purposely misquote the guy.
 
sabro said:
At least I didn't purposely misquote the guy.
Click to expand...

Yes, to purposely misquote is much worse than quoting an innacurate source. Plagerizing, though, is purposeful deception or just being downright lazy.

At any rate, thanks for admitting the error and correcting it.
 
So, does your just quoting that mean you are not going to endeavor to internalize it and present it in your own words with your understanding of it?

Are you now just resorting to surfing the internet, looking for arguments you can`t put forth for a book you don`t understand, copy, paste, and post?

Learn, brother Sabro, and express that which you learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top