Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Firenze]

It's one of the oddities of the christian faith that you seem to be allowed - even encouraged - to pick and choose which aspects of the message you want to follow, and there's apparently no repercussions when you get to the other end.

Unless you wrong the chosen of god or his people. Then, they can do a lot of exceedingly vile stuff to you and yours and it doesn't count as a sin.

Exactly. Saw a vid the other day where esteemed Vice Prez Pence said adultery is now okay. Fundamentalists pick and choose. How any right thinking person, let alone professed Christian, can believe Trump is a genuine Christian is mind boggling. That applies to #scottyfrommarketing too

 

[Evolved1]

Exactly. Saw a vid the other day where esteemed Vice Prez Pence said adultery is now okay. Fundamentalists pick and choose. How any right thinking person, let alone professed Christian, can believe Trump is a genuine Christian is mind boggling. That applies to #scottyfrommarketing too

Trump almost certainly isn't.

I am of the view that both Pence and ScoMo are Christians. Why do you think their faith isn't genuine?

 

[Vdubs]

Nope.

Answer Rusty Brookes' question, and I'll go away.

It is not black and white as you allude to.

I say to Rusty Brookes and to you that the whole Bible needs to be read. It is all worthwhile, not snippets here and there as if you are looking at a Melway or a text book. Read the whole book realising that this is God speaking to us-- In the OT, via prophets etc, and in the NT, via Jesus. It is not an easy read; but absolutely worthwhile. Seek help from Bible scholars etc if you have genuine concerns. I am certainly no expert, and although I have read it through twice, and read it daily, there is always something to learn and question. Questions are not an issue.

Just how much of the Bible should be interpreted literally is one of the hottest debates within Christianity today, and there are many different opinions. Some people believe the Bible must be defended against attacks on its accuracy and Divine origin. But, common literary techniques like parable, metaphor and allegory do not negate the Bible's message, nor do they threaten our faith. The Bible's teachings stand on their own merits, whether or not those teachings are delivered via stories that are intended to be taken literally. The important thing is that we understand what God is telling us through the Bible and that we don't let arguments about the literal truth of the Bible distract us from that goal. Perhaps, with a bit of humility, we can admit that only God has all the answers!

 

[Gethelred]

It is not black and white as you allude to.

I say to Rusty Brookes and to you that the whole Bible needs to be read. It is all worthwhile, not snippets here and there as if you are looking at a Melway or a text book. Read the whole book realising that this is God speaking to us-- In the OT, via prophets etc, and in the NT, via Jesus. It is not an easy read; but absolutely worthwhile. Seek help from Bible scholars etc if you have genuine concerns. I am certainly no expert, and although I have read it through twice, and read it daily, there is always something to learn and question. Questions are not an issue.

Several things: I've read the Bible through, several times. Once as a child and a believer, several times since to scrutinize it a bit, evaluate what I think a bit more.

Roland Barthes stated 'the author is dead', and the Protestant reformation agrees with him somewhat; people need not a church, simply the book and their relationship with god. They need not others to reinterpret the word of God to them, because their own personal interpretations are just as valid.

This is different from saying that each constituent part of the bible should be taken literally, as I'm referring to taking meaning from particular passages and needing others to understand the book.

Just how much of the Bible should be interpreted literally is one of the hottest debates within Christianity today, and there are many different opinions. Some people believe the Bible must be defended against attacks on its accuracy and Divine origin. But, common literary techniques like parable, metaphor and allegory do not negate the Bible's message, nor do they threaten our faith. The Bible's teachings stand on their own merits, whether or not those teachings are delivered via stories that are intended to be taken literally. The important thing is that we understand what God is telling us through the Bible and that we don't let arguments about the literal truth of the Bible distract us from that goal. Perhaps, with a bit of humility, we can admit that only God has all the answers!

How do you know what is considered metaphor, parable or allegory, and what is intended to be taken literally?

This is also not an answer to that question, either. This is an evasion writ long. It's not about threatening the faith, or about whether it's debated, or how many or lurid the opinions contained in the text are, or whether the 'truths' found in the bible stand on their own merits or whether God has all the answers. The question is, if you do not think the entire text should be taken literally to be a christian, how do you know what parts to follow and which to ignore?

If you can't answer this question, simply say so. If you can answer this question, do so without the padding, please. This is a matter which concerns your relationship a) with the religion, and b) with the god, and could even help you see which of those things you are tied more closely to.

You'd be surprised how putting a little thought into your religion could lead you to some amazing places, even if not all of them are atheistic.

 

[Vdubs]

Several things: I've read the Bible through, several times. Once as a child and a believer, several times since to scrutinize it a bit, evaluate what I think a bit more.

Roland Barthes stated 'the author is dead', and the Protestant reformation agrees with him somewhat; people need not a church, simply the book and their relationship with god. They need not others to reinterpret the word of God to them, because their own personal interpretations are just as valid.

This is different from saying that each constituent part of the bible should be taken literally, as I'm referring to taking meaning from particular passages and needing others to understand the book.

How do you know what is considered metaphor, parable or allegory, and what is intended to be taken literally?

This is also not an answer to that question, either. This is an evasion writ long. It's not about threatening the faith, or about whether it's debated, or how many or lurid the opinions contained in the text are, or whether the 'truths' found in the bible stand on their own merits or whether God has all the answers. The question is, if you do not think the entire text should be taken literally to be a christian, how do you know what parts to follow and which to ignore?

If you can't answer this question, simply say so. If you can answer this question, do so without the padding, please. This is a matter which concerns your relationship a) with the religion, and b) with the god, and could even help you see which of those things you are tied more closely to.

You'd be surprised how putting a little thought into your religion could lead you to some amazing places, even if not all of them are atheistic.

You don't approve of my answer, I get that. It is my answer. Good on you for having read the Bible twice. RB may not have. Don't project your fall-out with your faith onto me, or other believers. You ask questions that defy rational answers tbh. You refer to the whole text- it is massive, and there is much to take in. Dissecting it word for word, out of context, is not what it is about. I know I am a Christian, I know I have a relationship with Jesus, and nobody here deserves some anonymous keyboard warrior telling them that each word needs to be literally adhered to otherwise you're not a Christian. This is not said with any anger, just asking for respect. You will never convince people who are Born Again, and stable in their faith, that your perception of things is reality. And again, the whole of the Bible is profitable and essential for reading and meditating on. The OT is essential as this is what Jesus had to rely on. The NT is the fulfilment of OT promises.
I feel for you, because even though you say you have discovered reality, you spend a lot of time trying to shoot down anybody that comes onto this thread who has faith, as if we are space invaders on your thread.

 

[Evolved1]

Christianity is a mind-virus that impedes the ability of the infected to accurately decipher the words of non-believers.

Aliens you may well be.

 

[Gethelred]

You don't approve of my answer, I get that. It is my answer.

No. You haven't answered, not once. You've evaded, you've pontificated, you've self justified and you've ignored.

This is not my issue. I can answer if for you if you like; you cannot know which section is divine and which is not, because to declare any single part of the book as written by man leaves open the option that all of it could be written by man, polluted by man. You pick and choose on the basis of community ease and approval, following the dictates handed down as tradition without thinking too deeply about it.

That's fine, if only you'd admit to it. Take it on faith that you don't have all the answers, and that God will understand your limitations. Or do you not think he will?

Good on you for having read the Bible twice. RB may not have. Don't project your fall-out with your faith onto me, or other believers.

Laziness. If you answered the questions put before you, I'd have gone away.

You ask questions that defy rational answers tbh. You refer to the whole text- it is massive, and there is much to take in. Dissecting it word for word, out of context, is not what it is about.

I'm not asking you to isolate segments or books or chapters, I'm asking how you know what to take figuratively and what to take literally. Or, if you do follow all of it literally, why are you arguing with me?

I know I am a Christian, I know I have a relationship with Jesus, and nobody here deserves some anonymous keyboard warrior telling them that each word needs to be literally adhered to otherwise you're not a Christian. This is not said with any anger, just asking for respect. You will never convince people who are Born Again, and stable in their faith, that your perception of things is reality. And again, the whole of the Bible is profitable and essential for reading and meditating on. The OT is essential as this is what Jesus had to rely on. The NT is the fulfilment of OT promises.

Padding.

I feel for you, because even though you say you have discovered reality, you spend a lot of time trying to shoot down anybody that comes onto this thread who has faith, as if we are space invaders on your thread.

Vdubs, I've spent a very, very long time thinking about this stuff. I've explained what's lead to my own atheism in this thread; you're welcome to go back and have a look if you wish. I'm not shooting things down so much as I'm deeply interested in knowing if there's a theological/ecclesiastic argument that solves the problems I have with your faith in a rational way.

I feel for you. To walk through life so willfully blind to the miracle of it all, apportioning it to a creator; life is just so unlikely. It is so much more precious and fascinating because it is the result of randomness, because we do not understand it.

You look outside and turn away to thank God for creation. I simply look outside.

 

[Vdubs]

No. You haven't answered, not once. You've evaded, you've pontificated, you've self justified and you've ignored.

This is not my issue. I can answer if for you if you like; you cannot know which section is divine and which is not, because to declare any single part of the book as written by man leaves open the option that all of it could be written by man, polluted by man. You pick and choose on the basis of community ease and approval, following the dictates handed down as tradition without thinking too deeply about it.

That's fine, if only you'd admit to it. Take it on faith that you don't have all the answers, and that God will understand your limitations. Or do you not think he will?

Laziness. If you answered the questions put before you, I'd have gone away.

I'm not asking you to isolate segments or books or chapters, I'm asking how you know what to take figuratively and what to take literally. Or, if you do follow all of it literally, why are you arguing with me?
Padding.

Vdubs, I've spent a very, very long time thinking about this stuff. I've explained what's lead to my own atheism in this thread; you're welcome to go back and have a look if you wish. I'm not shooting things down so much as I'm deeply interested in knowing if there's a theological/ecclesiastic argument that solves the problems I have with your faith in a rational way.

I feel for you. To walk through life so willfully blind to the miracle of it all, apportioning it to a creator; life is just so unlikely. It is so much more precious and fascinating because it is the result of randomness, because we do not understand it.

You look outside and turn away to thank God for creation. I simply look outside.

ALL of the Bible was written by man. Inspired by God.

 

[Gethelred]

ALL of the Bible was written by man. Inspired by God.

... this distinction is important to you. I'm curious how it affects the question asked, though.

If all the bible was inspired by God, how can you - the universal you - ignore any given passage? Again, how do you decide which parts to take literally and which to dismiss as metaphor, parable or symbolism?

 

[Vdubs]

... this distinction is important to you. I'm curious how it affects the question asked, though.

If all the bible was inspired by God, how can you - the universal you - ignore any given passage? Again, how do you decide which parts to take literally and which to dismiss as metaphor, parable or symbolism?

By my intelligence, discernment and teaching. By regular reading, discussion and fellowship. We have home group meetings. It is a universal desire to know the will of God. We are on a journey. Nobody but God knows it all. He decides our sincerity and motivation in reading His Word.

 

[Gethelred]

By my intelligence, discernment and teaching. He decides our sincerity and motivation in reading His Word.

So, you do make a distinction between different parts of the book to know what to take literally and what to if not ignore take less seriously, and you use your own judgement to decide. Got there in the end.

So, if you're exercising your own judgement to decide what parts of the bible you take literally, how do you reconcile that with the entire work being divinely inspired? Do you believe that God cares less for what he's actually told you to do and more for your sincerity or motivation?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

It is not black and white as you allude to.

I say to Rusty Brookes and to you that the whole Bible needs to be read. It is all worthwhile, not snippets here and there as if you are looking at a Melway or a text book. Read the whole book realising that this is God speaking to us-- In the OT, via prophets etc, and in the NT, via Jesus. It is not an easy read; but absolutely worthwhile. Seek help from Bible scholars etc if you have genuine concerns. I am certainly no expert, and although I have read it through twice, and read it daily, there is always something to learn and question. Questions are not an issue.

Just how much of the Bible should be interpreted literally is one of the hottest debates within Christianity today, and there are many different opinions. Some people believe the Bible must be defended against attacks on its accuracy and Divine origin. But, common literary techniques like parable, metaphor and allegory do not negate the Bible's message, nor do they threaten our faith. The Bible's teachings stand on their own merits, whether or not those teachings are delivered via stories that are intended to be taken literally. The important thing is that we understand what God is telling us through the Bible and that we don't let arguments about the literal truth of the Bible distract us from that goal. Perhaps, with a bit of humility, we can admit that only God has all the answers!

But here's the issue for me. Like Gethelred, I have read the Bible. The irony here is having been educated at a Christian school, we were taught selectively which passages to read. Our religious teachers would always read out the good bits: for example, the parables (which do teach a good life lesson). Once me and a couple of friends, decided to read our Bibles end to end, it resulted in our jaws dropping. The stuff in Deutoronomy and Levitus is outrageous by any definition.

So what is God telling us when:

You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46

Even if I don't take it as a literal commandment what moral lesson does it teach us?

 

[Vdubs]

So, you do make a distinction between different parts of the book to know what to take literally and what to if not ignore take less seriously, and you use your own judgement to decide. Got there in the end.

So, if you're exercising your own judgement to decide what parts of the bible you take literally, how do you reconcile that with the entire work being divinely inspired? Do you believe that God cares less for what he's actually told you to do and more for your sincerity or motivation?

It wasn't clear to me that's what you were getting at. Your original provocative statement was more about YOU stating that unless a person accepts 100 % literally the whole Bible, he is deemed by you to be a non Christian. My point is what gives you any authority to say that?

What God told people in the OT is still instructional and was relevant to those people. You know all this. What he says to us in the NT is why we are Christians. I believe He wants ongoing relationships with all His created people, and reading His word is part of that. Praying, praising, and having fellowship with other Christians helps. How we read the Bible is important. Motivation and sincerity are important. It's not a contest between that and obedience.

 

[Gethelred]

It wasn't clear to me that's what you were getting at. Your original provocative statement was more about YOU stating that unless a person accepts 100 % literally the whole Bible, he is deemed by you to be a non Christian. My point is what gives you any authority to say that?

Why do I need authority to make a statement of fact?

Each and every distinction you place is different doctrine to what other people make. Each and every Christian - to follow your logic - can and will draw the line in different places, due to their individual preferences. Ergo, only those who choose to follow everything are the true Christians, because only they can make the claim that their doctrine is the exact same. From a position of fact, those judgements you make render you separate to those biblical literalists, because you are not interpreting the same thing the same way as they are.

So, if that's your point, it's a bit dumb.

What God told people in the OT is still instructional and was relevant to those people. You know all this. What he says to us in the NT is why we are Christians. I believe He wants ongoing relationships with all His created people, and reading His word is part of that. Praying, praising, and having fellowship with other Christians helps. How we read the Bible is important. Motivation and sincerity are important. It's not a contest between that and obedience.

How do you know it's not a contest between obedience and sincerity?

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)
"And through your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed—all because you have obeyed me." (Genesis 22:18, NLT)
Jesus replied, "But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice." (Luke 11:28, NLT)
But don’t just listen to God’s word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves. For if you listen to the word and don’t obey, it is like glancing at your face in a mirror. You see yourself, walk away, and forget what you look like. But if you look carefully into the perfect law that sets you free, and if you do what it says and don’t forget what you heard, then God will bless you for doing it. (James 1:22–25)
Love means doing what God has commanded us, and he has commanded us to love one another, just as you heard from the beginning. (2 John 6)

In particular, I'd draw your attention to:

And we can be sure that we know him if we obey his commandments. If someone claims, "I know God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. But those who obey God's word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did. (1 John 2:3–6)
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. (1 John 5:2–3)

You are welcome to believe what and how you wish. Your problem is that the bible actively contradicts what you're saying here. Love is defined in 1 John 5:2-3 as keeping his commandments, not through appropriate motivation or sincerity.

How do you reconcile the contents of 1 John 2:3-6 with what you've put forth here?

 

[Roylion]

What God told people in the OT is still instructional and was relevant to those people.

Of course it was. It was whatever those in power at the time (for example the priestly caste) wanted the masses to do and one of the more effective ways of seeing that their instructions / desires / creeds / morals were followed was to claim divine authority in support of those instructions / desires / creeds / morals .

"God's laws" or "divine law" are really only "man's laws".

The prohibition on eating pork is a good example.

So when the Book of Leviticus directed that only animals that were both cud chewers and had cloven hooves were fit to be consumed there were good practical (and inherently man-made) reasons for doing so. The pig was not a cud chewer so according to the priestly elite (who led the Hebrews in a sort of theocracy) it was not fit for human consumption.

By raising animals that could chew the cud, the Hebrews / Israelites could obtain meat and milk without having to share their crops with livestock such as pigs. Animals such as sheep, cattle and goats were ruminantes (herbivores that thrive best on diets that have a high cellulose content and can digest them more easily) and thrived on items such as grass, straw, hay, stubble, bushes and leaves, which of course were largely unfit for human consumption, even if boiled and softened in some way. Pigs on the other hand are omnivores and would eat just about anything, including human refuse if there was nothing else (which to many ancient peoples contributed to their unclean image) and even each other (which many omnivores do).

Pigs also weren't adapted well to the climate of the Middle East (much of which was hot, semi-arid grasslands.) Pigs therefore were more costly to raise in the Middle East, as they had to be provided for extra shade and water (for wallowing to cool their body temperatures - which also contributed to the imagery of pigs as unclean animals). This was especially true after the increase in Middle Eastern human population during the latter Neolithic era and the removal of vegetation that pigs needed. It's estimated for example in Anatolia (essentially modern Turkey) that forests fell from 70% of the total land area in about 5,000 BC to about 13%.

Pigs also couldn't pull plows, they weren't suited for milking and their hair was unsuited for fibre and cloth. For a pastoral nomadic group like the Israelites wandering in search of suitable land, raising pigs was out of the question.

And what better way to ensure that a large amount of natural resources weren't expended on the raising of pigs for consumption, than to ensure that "Yahweh" banned their consumption. Yahweh (one of many Gods incidentally, but the patron god of the Israelites) didn't do anything of the sort of course. It was the Hebrew elite that banned the consumption of pork and to make sure their edicts were followed assigned 'divine authority' to that edict. Terrorise the people into obeying by the threat of earthly destruction or eternal damnation.

This was similar to the prohibition on homosexuality. There were practical secular reasonings for the Hebrew/Israelite elite to prohibit homosexuality at the time. There was nothing divine about it. Would you like me to go through why?

Therefore the Bible (both Old and New Testament) as a source of 'divine law' that must be observed, followed and obeyed is deeply flawed. I see no reason to rely on that work as a source of morals or rules for everyday life, other than what I decide is relevant to my life and what is mandated by the secular law of the society I live in.

In fact why use the Bible at all?

 

[Vdubs]

Why do I need authority to make a statement of fact?

Each and every distinction you place is different doctrine to what other people make. Each and every Christian - to follow your logic - can and will draw the line in different places, due to their individual preferences. Ergo, only those who choose to follow everything are the true Christians, because only they can make the claim that their doctrine is the exact same. From a position of fact, those judgements you make render you separate to those biblical literalists, because you are not interpreting the same thing the same way as they are.

So, if that's your point, it's a bit dumb.

How do you know it's not a contest between obedience and sincerity?

If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)
"And through your descendants all the nations of the earth will be blessed—all because you have obeyed me." (Genesis 22:18, NLT)
Jesus replied, "But even more blessed are all who hear the word of God and put it into practice." (Luke 11:28, NLT)
But don’t just listen to God’s word. You must do what it says. Otherwise, you are only fooling yourselves. For if you listen to the word and don’t obey, it is like glancing at your face in a mirror. You see yourself, walk away, and forget what you look like. But if you look carefully into the perfect law that sets you free, and if you do what it says and don’t forget what you heard, then God will bless you for doing it. (James 1:22–25)
Love means doing what God has commanded us, and he has commanded us to love one another, just as you heard from the beginning. (2 John 6)

In particular, I'd draw your attention to:

And we can be sure that we know him if we obey his commandments. If someone claims, "I know God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. But those who obey God's word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did. (1 John 2:3–6)
By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. (1 John 5:2–3)

You are welcome to believe what and how you wish. Your problem is that the bible actively contradicts what you're saying here. Love is defined in 1 John 5:2-3 as keeping his commandments, not through appropriate motivation or sincerity.

How do you reconcile the contents of 1 John 2:3-6 with what you've put forth here?

Following the Commandments is and always will be a non-negotiable. Not all of the words written in the OT are commandments.

 

[Gethelred]

Following the Commandments is and always will be a non-negotiable. Not all of the words written in the OT are commandments.

Evasion, and an awful lot of the stuff in the post you quoted are from the Gospels rather than the OT.

Return to the subject at hand: how is this...

Motivation and sincerity are important. It's not a contest between that and obedience.

Compatible with this?

And we can be sure that we know him if we obey his commandments. If someone claims, "I know God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. But those who obey God's word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did. (1 John 2:3–6)

 

[Vdubs]

Evasion, and an awful lot of the stuff in the post you quoted are from the Gospels rather than the OT.

Return to the subject at hand: how is this...

Compatible with this?

Completely agree.
I am saying it is not a competition. All are relevant and important.
Without a NT there are no Christians.

 

[Vdubs]

But here's the issue for me. Like Gethelred, I have read the Bible. The irony here is having been educated at a Christian school, we were taught selectively which passages to read. Our religious teachers would always read out the good bits: for example, the parables (which do teach a good life lesson). Once me and a couple of friends, decided to read our Bibles end to end, it resulted in our jaws dropping. The stuff in Deutoronomy and Levitus is outrageous by any definition.

So what is God telling us when:

You may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. Leviticus 25:44-46

Even if I don't take it as a literal commandment what moral lesson does it teach us?

God is definitely opposed to slavery: his Son became a slave in order to redeem us from slavery of the deepest sort. But his opposition is not simplistic or shallow. God’s word and his accomplished work in Christ is the most realistic and effective response to a problem which is deeper and more complex than most imagine.
Israelite ‘slavery’ was not grinding misery. It was really bonded service, with a lower status, but for a limited time and with certain protections.
It was like serving in the Armed forces. Work, bond, housing, protection, meals- all laid on, and there were benefits at the end of the period of bondage.

 

[Gethelred]

Completely agree.
I am saying it is not a competition. All are relevant and important.
Without a NT there are no Christians.

This does not serve as a response to the post you've quoted.

I'm doing my best to avoid being offensive here, but according to 1 John 2:4, "If someone claims, "I know God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth."

You have claimed to be serving God, to being a true Christian, but you've also admitted to taking some of the bible less literally than others. Tell me why other christians shouldn't regard you as a liar who is not living in the truth, as the Bible suggests.

 

[Roylion]

God is definitely opposed to slavery:

Except when it suited His purposes.

Israelite ‘slavery’ was not grinding misery. It was really bonded service, with a lower status, but for a limited time and with certain protections.

Only for fellow Israelites. Leviticus 25:44-46 seems to indicate that slavery was permanent for non-Israelites.

25:44 And as for thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, whom thou mayest have: of the nations that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they have begotten in your land; and they may be your possession.

25:46. And ye may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession: of them may ye take your bondmen for ever; but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule, one over another, with rigour.

In the Deuteronomic Code, captives obtained through warfare become slaves, as long as Israelites were not among the victims.

It was like serving in the Armed forces. Work, bond, housing, protection, meals- all laid on, and there were benefits at the end of the period of bondage.

Only if an Israelite.

 

[Vdubs]

This does not serve as a response to the post you've quoted.

I'm doing my best to avoid being offensive here, but according to 1 John 2:4, "If someone claims, "I know God," but doesn't obey God's commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth."

You have claimed to be serving God, to being a true Christian, but you've also admitted to taking some of the bible less literally than others. Tell me why other christians shouldn't regard you as a liar who is not living in the truth, as the Bible suggests.

Not all of the Bible is commandments. It's other Christians who help with Bible study. You should maybe have tried it. It's only you, a born again atheist, who is trying to tell Christians about their faith and obedience based on your perception of having to accept every word literally. I accept the whole of the Bible as useful and essential reading, but clearly, a lot of OT writings are not applicable in 2020.
I totally accept that the OT was the only scriptures that Jesus had to rely on, and that is crucial, pardon the pun. But what Jesus has done for us, to fulfil OT prophesy, is why we are Christians. Reading the NT in light of the OT IS AWESOME.

 

[Gethelred]

Not all of the Bible is commandments. It's other Christians who help with Bible study. You should maybe have tried it. It's only you, a born again atheist, who is trying to tell Christians about their faith and obedience based on your perception of having to accept every word literally. I accept the whole of the Bible as useful and essential reading, but clearly, a lot of OT writings are not applicable in 2020.

... which is you deciding arbitrarily to discard aspects of God's word due to inconvenience.

Either it's all God's word, and should all be followed, or why follow any individual part of it if it can be disregarded when you want to? The Bible already states what it thinks of people who don't follow the word literally; your argument here is unsurprising.

Rejection of what I'm saying is the only path towards continuing being a christian.

I totally accept that the OT was the only scriptures that Jesus had to rely on, and that is crucial, pardon the pun. But what Jesus has done for us, to fulfil OT prophesy, is why we are Christians. Reading the NT in light of the OT IS AWESOME.

You are christians because you were born in a majority christian nation, your parents sent you to religious schooling, and you desperately needed guidance at one point in your life. If you were born in Saudi Arabia or Iran, you would be a muslim; if you were born in China or SE Asia, you would be a buddhist; if you were born in Germany you would be Protestant; if you were born in Greece you'd be Orthodox.

And you are lucky, in that christianity has moved past murdering each other for their doctrinal differences by this point in time in most parts of the world.

 

[Firenze]

Trump almost certainly isn't.

I am of the view that both Pence and ScoMo are Christians. Why do you think their faith isn't genuine?

I don't regard anyone who attends Hillsong as genuine Christians. It's a money making enterprise led by a dodgy leader who, as I understand it, has no recognised theological qualifications. And genuine believers aren't supposed to be dissemblers, divisive, betrayers who display little practical interest in the poor and less fortunate.

As for Pence. This covers it.

 

[Vdubs]

... which is you deciding arbitrarily to discard aspects of God's word due to inconvenience.

Either it's all God's word, and should all be followed, or why follow any individual part of it if it can be disregarded when you want to? The Bible already states what it thinks of people who don't follow the word literally; your argument here is unsurprising.

Rejection of what I'm saying is the only path towards continuing being a christian.

You are christians because you were born in a majority christian nation, your parents sent you to religious schooling, and you desperately needed guidance at one point in your life. If you were born in Saudi Arabia or Iran, you would be a muslim; if you were born in China or SE Asia, you would be a buddhist; if you were born in Germany you would be Protestant; if you were born in Greece you'd be Orthodox.

And you are lucky, in that christianity has moved past murdering each other for their doctrinal differences by this point in time in most parts of the world.

The Bible says nothing about not following it word for word literally (in fact, it is not possible or relevant today in many areas)- just your concrete mindset. Mine is not an argument, just fact. I am a Christian, not because I was born into a Catholic family, but because later on in my life I sought out Jesus and made a personal commitment. I am proudly born again. This is what Christianity is about, and then trying to live in Australia in 2020 in the most Christ-like way possible. That necessitates Bible study, fellowship, acknowledging sin, repenting and having as much prayerful communication with Jesus as possible.

The highlighted point you made- is that serious? The epitome of Nonsense .