Zone1 What makes Christianity different from other religions?

[BreezeWood]

God created us all to be a free people. When did people ban slavery?

when did christianity ban slavery -

in fact fought the civil war for the exact opposite to keep the one's they owned.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Meaning God already made it clear we are a free people. But it's human nature, isn't it, to decide we know better. We are also very good at trying to find the exceptions (loopholes) to every rule. When this happens, sometimes it is the burnt hand that teaches best.

It was HUMANS who decided slavery was wrong and to beat your slave until he is almost dead. Your god said nothing about this being immoral. Humans did. Thus, we are more moral than the bible god.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

No, I believe the Bible and have a rudimentary understanding of first-century history.

You, on the other hand, question Paul's existence, flying in the face of your competing camp that says Paul started Christianity, which is completely illogical. But y'all can argue amongst yourselves, I don't care.

And you say Jesus never banned the Law. Not true. He said it was still in effect until he would come in a cloud. Do you know how the Israelites historically believed God came? Hint: in a cloud.

They believed he came in a cloud when Judaism collapsed. The Law was finished. Or do you think Levites still perform their priestly ministrations and sacrifice animals and uphold their slavery and usury laws?

I'm guessing you get all your "information" from your contemporaries.

You are misquoting your bible, and people do that when they want to ignore what it says.

Matthew 5:17, where Jesus says:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

He goes on in Matthew 5:18 to say:

“For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”

Now, look. I don't give a rats ass what Paul may have said (assuming he said anything. Some say others wrote those letters that got no response, by the way. In any event, Paul merely claimed a vision, not corroborated by anyone. That's it. Bright light or lighting, a vision at a time when they were a dime a dozen by any religious whack job and believed. He never mentions that he spoke to Jesus during this vision about what Jesus wanted. He never met the guy. He just jumped on the Christian bandwagon.

The Bible passages are supposedly from Jesus. Last I checked, Earth was still here. I checked the bible too. Nothing about coming on a cloud has happened yet, either.

 

[norwegen]

You are misquoting your bible, and people do that when they want to ignore what it says.

Matthew 5:17, where Jesus says:




He goes on in Matthew 5:18 to say:


Now, look. I don't give a rats ass what Paul may have said (assuming he said anything. Some say others wrote those letters that got no response, by the way. In any event, Paul merely claimed a vision, not corroborated by anyone. That's it. Bright light or lighting, a vision at a time when they were a dime a dozen by any religious whack job and believed. He never mentions that he spoke to Jesus during this vision about what Jesus wanted. He never met the guy. He just jumped on the Christian bandwagon.

The Bible passages are supposedly from Jesus. Last I checked, Earth was still here. I checked the bible too. Nothing about coming on a cloud has happened yet, either.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. No more need for them. Or, again, do you think the Levites are still enforcing Moses?

And yes, all was accomplished, according to the narrative. Heaven and earth passed away, just as it had several times before.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. No more need for them. Or, again, do you think the Levites are still enforcing Moses?

And yes, all was accomplished, according to the narrative. Heaven and earth passed away, just as it had several times before.

How did he fulfill them? That is nonsense and parroting of others. If you say he was sinless, so what? That isn't fulfilling anything. This is what happens to indoctrinate people. You have heard that nonsense from people in authority that he "fulfilled" the laws and just regurgitate it.

 

[Meriweather]

It was HUMANS who decided slavery was wrong and to beat your slave until he is almost dead. Your god said nothing about this being immoral. Humans did. Thus, we are more moral than the bible god.

Do you see any irony in insisting that humans don't need God to be moral, and that you wrote a children's book where morality had nothing to do with God. Then you come here and insist God be moral. Perhaps that is what your prayer life centers around--you talking to God about his morals?

Here is what people of faith know about God; what their experiences with God teach them: God is love. God is good. God's ways are not the ways of humans and God's thoughts are not the thoughts of humans. God's ways and God's thought are as far above human ways and human thoughts as the heavens are from the earth.

We already went over the fact that in any time and population, seventy-five percent of the people never owned slaves. God never owned slaves. Every creature he created was free.

Do you see where I am going with this? Human thoughts are different from God's thoughts, and at some point in time, some humans thought making other people slaves was good for both owner, slave, and economy. What say you: If God saw humans had thoughts of their own, and some of these thoughts were out of line with his thoughts, should he obliterate these thoughts from the human mind? What if humans started thinking recreational sex outside of marriage was a good thing, and abortion was also a good, and this was out of line with God's thoughts. Should he obliterate all thoughts and reasoning for recreational sex from the minds of humans? Let's move on to disagreements. Any thought that disagrees with God's thoughts are promptly obliterated?

Is it best to grow and learn from our mistakes, or is it better to be wrapped in cotton batting and placed high on a shelf where someone else thinks for you?

 

[norwegen]

How did he fulfill them? That is nonsense and parroting of others. If you say he was sinless, so what? That isn't fulfilling anything. This is what happens to indoctrinate people. You have heard that nonsense from people in authority that he "fulfilled" the laws and just regurgitate it.

Am I parroting or did I "made up a different religion"? Make up your mind.

You know damn well, from this conversation alone, that you have not heard or have seldom heard the things I said. But plenty of people have already said the things you said.

You're the parrot.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Do you see any irony in insisting that humans don't need God to be moral, and that you wrote a children's book where morality had nothing to do with God. Then you come here and insist God be moral. Perhaps that is what your prayer life centers around--you talking to God about his morals?

Here is what people of faith know about God; what their experiences with God teach them: God is love. God is good. God's ways are not the ways of humans and God's thoughts are not the thoughts of humans. God's ways and God's thought are as far above human ways and human thoughts as the heavens are from the earth.

We already went over the fact that in any time and population, seventy-five percent of the people never owned slaves. God never owned slaves. Every creature he created was free.

Do you see where I am going with this? Human thoughts are different from God's thoughts, and at some point in time, some humans thought making other people slaves was good for both owner, slave, and economy. What say you: If God saw humans had thoughts of their own, and some of these thoughts were out of line with his thoughts, should he obliterate these thoughts from the human mind? What if humans started thinking recreational sex outside of marriage was a good thing, and abortion was also a good, and this was out of line with God's thoughts. Should he obliterate all thoughts and reasoning for recreational sex from the minds of humans? Let's move on to disagreements. Any thought that disagrees with God's thoughts are promptly obliterated?

Is it best to grow and learn from our mistakes, or is it better to be wrapped in cotton batting and placed high on a shelf where someone else thinks for you?

Why did God say it was OK to own slaves as property?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Am I parroting or did I "made up a different religion"? Make up your mind.

You know damn well, from this conversation alone, that you have not heard or have seldom heard the things I said. But plenty of people have already said the things you said.

You're the parrot.

Yet you have no response.

 

[Meriweather]

Why did God say it was OK to own slaves as property?

Did he tell you it was okay to own slaves as property?

 

[BreezeWood]

Did he tell you it was okay to own slaves as property?

obviously as written ...

does the literature written in the desert bibles remain - that then is your deity the one you chose and worship or you would correct the errors. as is shown by your reply's.

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Did he tell you it was okay to own slaves as property?

He didn’t tell me anything. Space owners wrote that.

 

[Meriweather]

He didn’t tell me anything. Space owners wrote that.

Grin. Let's refer you back to your post (#162).

Thus, we are more moral than the bible god.

When people have no belief in God and does not know God, doesn't it make more sense for atheists to tell me what is wrong with me--a person an atheist believes does exist--rather than what is wrong with God?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Grin. Let's refer you back to your post (#162).


When people have no belief in God and does not know God, doesn't it make more sense for atheists to tell me what is wrong with me--a person an atheist believes does exist--rather than what is wrong with God?

You refuse to acknowledge the immorality of the Bible God.

 

[Meriweather]

You refuse to acknowledge the immorality of the Bible God.

Shrug. You refuse to acknowledge God at all, so why should I acknowledge your description of him. I also pointed out other Biblical descriptions of God that weren't acknowledged. There were slaves in Egypt. Seven times God asked for these people to be freed. Do you know what seven signifies in Hebrew? A: Completion, perfection, holiness. It appears freedom means everything to God.

 

[Shiversepter]

;
Please consider the Manuscripts of the Greek Text..

1Pe 3:19
εν In - ω whom και also - τοις those - εν in - φυλακη prison - πνευμασιν the spirit - πορευθεις has went - εκηρυξεν preaching

:19
IN WHOM ALSO THOSE IN PRISON THE SPIRIT HAS WENT PREACHING

i do not believe that Jesus went to preach to the dead spirits when he died but simply the passage is simply saying that the Spirit of Jesus has gone preaching to our spirits which are in prison and bound by sin

THE PASSAGE THEN GOES ON TO EXPLAIN

:20
απειθησασιν They that believed not - ποτε how long - οτε then - απαξ were once - εξεδεχετο expecting - η that - του the - θεου God - μακροθυμια was longsuffering - εν in - ημεραις of the days - νωε Noah - κατασκευαζομενης was preparing - κιβωτου the ark - εις into - ην which - ολιγαι as few as - τουτεστιν that were - οκτω eight - ψυχαι souls - διεσωθησαν were saved - δι by - υδατος water


:20
THEY THAT BELIEVED NOT,, HOW LONG THEN, WERE ONCE EXPECTING THAT THE GOD WAS LONGSUFFERING IN OF THE DAYS NOAH WAS PREPARING THE ARK


INTO WHICH AS FEW AS THAT WERE EIGHT SOULS WERE SAVED BY WATER


MEANING - topic - context - saying


:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust,

that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:.........................................................................................

:19 In whom also those in prison the spirit has went preaching.

those in prison the spirit has went preaching

also


:20 They that believed not,, how long then, were once expecting
that the God was longsuffering in of the days Noah was preparing the ark

into which as few as that were eight souls were saved by water.


is the passage is simply saying ?

that in the days of the flood the unbelievers continued on in sin while they expected or considered that God was longsuffering and patient and they went onward into their destruction - expecting for so long that God would be merciful and patient.

to view this as somehow Jesus went to the billions of people who lived in the pre - flood time and preached to these people - i believe this is not what the simple manuscripts are saying

"" those in prison the spirit has went preaching - ""

this is the exact Greek - word for word exactly, the translators modify, change and move words around to say

1Pe 3:19 = By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison

but this is not what the manuscripts are saying
"" those in prison the spirit has went preaching - "" simple.

if Jesus preached to the Pre - Flood spirits - why did he not also go to the Spirits who lived after the flood and onward, nearly 2,500 years after the flood to the time of Jesus... ?

Could it be that there are pre conceived assumptions about the idea of Jesus preaching to the dead and then the translators change and alter the words to a small and slight modification in order to present the idea that Jesus was preaching to the fallen angels

which is perhaps why the translators altered the passage - to refer to the fallen angels ?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Shrug. You refuse to acknowledge God at all, so why should I acknowledge your description of him. I also pointed out other Biblical descriptions of God that weren't acknowledged. There were slaves in Egypt. Seven times God asked for these people to be freed. Do you know what seven signifies in Hebrew? A: Completion, perfection, holiness. It appears freedom means everything to God.

This is the thing with debating with Christians that I have experienced for decades now. When they want and like a bible passage, they will cite it from memory. When they don't, they will ignore it or try to find some countervailing verse. Concerning homosexuality, the "loving" bible god said it was an abomination and deserving of death. With regard to slavery, he never once denounced it.

A poster here defends both positions and sees nothing at all wrong with beating a slave, equating them to disobedient children.

Now, it's OK and I am perfectly fine for someone to cherry-pick the bible and ignore what the bible actually says and go to the kinder, gentler parts. In doing so, it is an admission that certain parts of the writings are indefensible.

It was and is humans who decided moral values in spite of their contention that God did it

 

[Meriweather]

This is the thing with debating with Christians that I have experienced for decades now. When they want and like a bible passage, they will cite it from memory. When they don't, they will ignore it or try to find some countervailing verse. Concerning homosexuality, the "loving" bible god said it was an abomination and deserving of death. With regard to slavery, he never once denounced it.

Giving an overview of the Bible is not citing bible passages from memory. What seems odd to me is that you are not interested in anything that presents God favorably. Slavery and homosexuality are always trotted to the forefront. No one points out only a minority of Jews ever owned slaves. Is it your position that everyone who owned slaves abused them? Or, is it more likely it was a sometimes occurrence that offended the rest of the tribe and steps were taken that this sometimes occurrence was a never occurrence.

Next homosexuality. Can you provide a list of people put to death because they were guilty of homosexuality? Study the culture. First, in order to be found guilty of homosexuality, it had to be witnessed by two people who had no association with the other. Are you also aware that if more than two people were sentenced to death in a seventy year period, that court became known as a 'bloody' court.

Let's take a look at the Hebrew word translated into English as 'deserving'. The connotation and the root matches most closely our word 'seen'. Are you aware that homosexual males typically have a significantly shorter lifespan that heterosexual males? Apparently the same was seen in Biblical times--the shorter lifespan was 'seen'/known. Anything that kills life before its usual time would naturally be described as what? Perhaps as an 'abomination'?

Hmmm. Insisting freeing the slaves (noted seven times) doesn't count, because slavery wasn't denounced.

A poster here defends both positions and sees nothing at all wrong with beating a slave, equating them to disobedient children.

Now, it's OK and I am perfectly fine for someone to cherry-pick the bible and ignore what the bible actually says and go to the kinder, gentler parts. In doing so, it is an admission that certain parts of the writings are indefensible.

It was and is humans who decided moral values in spite of their contention that God did it

How many years have you done deep study and research into the Bible, its languages, its cultures, its histories? From what you post here it appears your study and research is limited to slavery and homosexuality. How were Jews instructed to treat strangers and foreigners living or traveling in their midst? I know that's not a "gotcha!" element you are in search of, but all the same you may find it interesting. I even know your likely response--that no one needs God to tell any atheist to treat kindly the strangers and foreigners living among them.

 

[Zebra]

The Catholic Church believes in Saints, and that the Pope is God's emissary on earth. The Presbyterian Church believes the Pope is the Anti-Christ. The Baptists believe you have to achieve the age of reason before Baptism. The Catholics believe that unless you are baptized at birth, you cannot be buried on consecrated ground.

Catholics don't believe in divorce, but the Pope can give you one.

Anglicans believe in divorce, but not remarriage.

Fundamentalists do not allow remarriage.

Jehovah's Witnesses cannot enter into any Church that isn't a Kingdom Hall, because these aren't the true churches.

How is Christianity a "much cleaner departure".

do they really think that the Pope is the Anti.Christ?

 

[Paradoxical#1]

do they really think that the Pope is the Anti.Christ?

It appears that some do. The whole bit of a human being infallible because some bishops and cardinals voted for him is itself preposterous. So is the notion of saints is also crazy. Constantine, a bloodthirsty murderor who killed his own wife and son is a siant.

Catholicism is a cult.