When God created free will He created the potential for evil. Not quite the same thing. He created us with the freedom to choose to follow His will or to not follow His will. Evil, by definition, is anything that goes against God's will. His told us what His will is in His word. Disease, infirmity, calamity, destrution, sin and death are not what He wants for us. They result from turning away from God's will. That is why there is evil in the world.
You might as well ask why there is any evil in the world at all. The answer is because of Adam's sin. The thief is the ruler of this world. Adam haded his authority over to him when he sinned, but God has a plan to bring the world back into his perfect will. It just hasn't all played out yet.
Why would you mix your business logic with your layout just because you're using PHP? If you do you've got no one to blame but yourself. How is this the fault of the language? Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's recomended. I wrote a php templating system if 5 lines of code:
function include_tpl($file, $vars = array()) {
extract($vars);
include($file); }
there. done. Now you put all your layout in php files maked template and your business logic php code can just include the templates by calling the above function.
You're confusing theories and ideas with truths. Theories are tools for navigating a complex world. You ideas and thoughts don't make a whit of difference to what actually *is*. Truth is what is, regardless of what our conceptions are. Truth exists outside our conceptions. We simply try to discover it and aproximate it as best we can.
Well, what did Jesus have to say about it? "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." - John 10:10
The tsunami caused death an destruction, therefor it did not come from God. There, that wasn't so hard now was it?
Ah yes... someone who understands. Evil greedy corporations who care for nothing but the bottom line... sounds horrible until you consider it a little further. They care for nothing but making a profit. What is profit? Profit is making more money than you spend. What is money? Money is a representation of value. They care for nothing but creating that which is valuable to the rest of society, stuff the rest of society will give a representation of value in exchange for, while at the same time consuming as little valueable stuff as possible. The problem is not the corporation or their motivations, the problem is fixing the system so there are no hidden costs and no one can push their costs onto others, like in the case of polution, or government subsidies.
This already happens. Stock options have been counted as an expense for tax purposes for a very long time. Remeber back durring the boom how Cisco payed no taxes even though they were one of the most profitable companies in the tech industry? It was because they reported stock options as an expense to the IRS and not to wall street. I think a better solution to all this would be simply to tax coporations (at a very low rate) on reported profits. Don't let them keep two sets of books. It'll help keep them honest. If they lie about profits to wall street, then they have to pay taxes on profit they didn't really make.
Highlander II? What are you talking about? There was no Highlander II. Even the writer and director of Highlander III admited there was never a Highlander II.
I think you got it. We do have a common starting premise, that Jesus was a real person who lived and made the claims recorded in the gospels. You are correct that something can be internally logically consistent and still be based on an assumption. That, in and of itself doesn't mean that it is valid or invalid. That's what makes it a philosophy instead of a scientific theory. I don't think you're claiming that all philosophy is not worth discussion because it can't be validated or justified using logic. An incorrect philosophy can be invalidated by showing it is not internally consistent, but it can't be validated by definition. If it could be, then it would be a theory, not a philosophy.
My hypothesis is that God did this intentionally so as not to violate our free will. It takes an act of faith to believe in God's word. It cannot be decided for you with a chain of logic. It also takes an act of faith to reject it. You must decide on faith that even though it cannot be invalidated, it is not true because you just don't think it's true.
The statement "anyone with black skin is subhuman" is a fallicy because it can be disproven. Blacks and whites are the same species because they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. So this example does not illustrate your point, but I agree with you that if you cannot agree on a starting premise you cannot have a meaningfull discussion.
you, nor anyone else has anything to say that is more validated because it is derived of his religion.
Correct, God's word cannot be justified or validated using logical principals. Niether can it be invalidated, as it is internally logically consistent. You run into the problem of self-evident base assumptions that cannot be justified as with any correct chain of reasoning. The infinite chain problem.
you either use logic in your debate or not
If there is some logical fallicy in my chain of reasoning please point it out. Here is what I'm proposing:
A man named Jesus said that He is the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Him. He claimed to be the son of God, the jewish messiah. He claimed that the jewish scriptures are the word of God, and that He came to fulfull the promises given in these scriptures. That He lived and claimed these things is not in dispute. It is recorded more thoroughly than any other event from antiquity. Logic dictates one of two things, either He was telling the truth, or He was a liar. It cannot be both. If He was telling the truth, then there is no other way to the Father. All other religions that claim to provide a path to God are false. If He was a liar, then He was not who He claimed. His statements are worth no more than any other liar or dilusional fool. He is the greatest liar in the history of man kind as no other figure in history can claim His following. If He is a liar, then you are correct, it is pure arrogance for Him to have claimed that no one comes to the Father but by Him.
This is where the chain of logic ends. The next step, either for or against, cannot be dictated through logic or reason. You either take it on faith that what Jesus claimed is true, or that it and the whole of God's word is complete and utter fiction. To do otherwise would be logically inconsistent with Jesus's claims.
Again, if you feel I've made a logical fallicy in my chain of reasoning, please point it out. I accept that I am capable of error.
Fundamentalism is thrown around like a dirty word. Believing unconditionally and uncompromisingly in the truth is a good thing. You appear to believe unconditionally and uncompromisingly in the sanctity of sound reason, that logic cannot contradict itself, so you too are a fundamentalist. Believing unconditionally and uncompromisingly in a lie leads to death. That much is abundantly clear.
If Jesus was not the son of God, then by his own words He is a liar and a deciever of a large portion of the human race, more so by far than any other person who has ever lived. I think you'll see that there are no logical fallicies in the reasonings I've given (if there are, I'll be happy to correct them) My beliefs as far as they are consistent with God's word are also logically consistent. They are however based on core assumptions that cannot be justified or invalidated with logic. These must be taken on faith. In fact, it all comes down to that one core assumption, that Jesus was in fact, exactly who he claimed to be. I think God set it up this way intentionally so as not to violate our ability to choose. If we could justify or invalidate His word with logic alone, there really wouldn't be any choice.
I have faith that the philosophy layed out in God's word does in fact hold more truth than other incompatible philosophies. It holds *the* truth. Just because it cannot be proven using logical techniques does not mean it is not so, so long as it connot also be disproven.
This is the choice you are faced with. Either you accept that Jesus is who He says He is, or accept that He is the greatest liar who ever lived. There is no in-between. Logic and reason demand it. God loves you and sent His son to save your life. Choose to live.
I do not perscribe to moral relativism. I also realize that I am a fallable human being who can mistiakes in judgement about what is right and what is wrong. Me saying that something is right or wrong doesn't affect it's rightness or wrongness any more than when popular culture says it. What makes it right or wrong is when God says it. I choose to take it on faith that Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be, and that He is the perfect representation of the Father (He said, if you seen me you've seen the Father). If He's not then He's a liar and noone should listen to a word He said. When popular culture, moral relativisim, or you or I dissagree with what God says, we're wrong. We would have been wrong 1000 years ago, we would still be wrong 1000 years from now.
That being said, God loves homosexuals. He died to save them just as he died to save you and I and all other sinners. I understand that some people can be born with a genetic predisposition for it just as people can be born with a genetic predisposition for all kinds of disorders. I also believe that some people choose it or are driven to it because of mollestation or other environmental influences. I believe in God's power, willingness, and ability to heal in all cases.
I'm aware of that. The crux of my argument here is that it is a currently held popular belief that's wrong. That fact that it's been popular in the past in other cultures doesn't change that. What I'm saying is that popularity has no bearing on truth, either in the positive or the negative. There might be a correlation in some cases, but not causation.
Gah! Kids are individuals damit! What kind of a screwed up education system can take a child's natural curiosity, wonder and desire to learn and squash it like a bug?!? How can you allow yourself to be a party to that? Instead of throwing up your hands and saying "the state made me do it!", you need to be working from the inside to advocate change. This is just wrong! The whole concept of assembly line, cookie cutter education is just plain wrong!
Re:No moral values ever stood a thousand years
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 0
Eh? how so? I'm repeating what Jesus taught. At least, that's what I'm trying to do. I'm open to the possiblity that I might be confused about some point of it. Gods laws are eternal and unchanging. We are sinful and incapable of following the law perfectly. Jesus came to save us and pay the price for our sin. Now God's laws are written on our hearts (when we accept Christ). The laws haven't changed, they've been fulfilled for us. We still sin, but now we have redemption. Because of Christ living inside us, we strive to live like he did. That's sort of the whole point of Christianity. You should look into it, you might like what you find.
Re:No moral values ever stood a thousand years
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 1
?!? Why are you upset at me? I didn't write it, I'm trying to explain my view of it. How many ways do I have to say it? Forced slavery is horrible. It's wrong. It's sinful. It's evil. Did you read it that time? Have I made myself clear? Which part of it are you still confused about? Choosing to enter into a contract where you serve unconditionally for seven years for chunk of cash to pay off debts or rescue your family from a bad situation is a serious thing that should not be under taken lightly. It is not however completely untennable or sinfull. Mistreating your servants is not a good way of showing Christ's love, even if it is your legal right. And under the law of Moses, under no circumstance is it legal to kill a servant. Clearly none of this applies to our current legal system, and that's not a bad thing.
Re:No moral values ever stood a thousand years
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 0
Look, like I said, If you want to prove the bible is wrong, we're just going to continue to talk past each other. An "enlightened" Christian who disreagards Jesus own claim that scripture is God's word is not really following Christ is he?
As I stated before, the references to slavery are referring to the voluntary practice of selling yourself into servitude for a time. If you do this, you should hold up your end and serve with all your abilities. It's similar to employment but with longer terms. If you are forced into slavery, this is bad and your master is sinful. You should still love him and serve him and be an example of Christ to him. Maybe he'll learn from you and accept Christ!
Like I said before, selling your children into servitude is the result of bad choices made by parents putting them in that situation. Choices have consiquences. This isn't an endorsement. Clearly such situations are regretable.
Mankind is the glory of God, and woman is the glory of man. This makes women the glory of God's glory. Women are submit (voluntarily) to their husbands and men are to love their wives. Husbands are not to force their wives into submision. Women and men have different roles in the family. One is not more or less important than the other. If more people practiced this do you think we would have such a problem with divorce and broken homes and families! I recognize that these ideas are severely unpopular but that doesn't negate their truth.
:) Very entertaining read. Seriously though, you're missing the whole part about being redeemed from the curse of the law. If we accept Jesus, God's laws are written on our hearts. A common misunderstanding.
Re:No moral values ever stood a thousand years
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 1
The wages of sin is death. That's why we need to be saved. *You* forgot the rest of the Bible, the part that starts in Matthew.
they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?" They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more." - John 8:4-11
God's immutable word has been recorded in scripture, unchanged, for thousands of years. That's what I was referring to. Not human interpretations, sects, or movements.
Re:No moral values ever stood a thousand years
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 1
I'm not trying to be condescending. I was pointing out that if you approach the subject from the viewpoint of trying to prove the bible wrong rather than honestly seeking to understand it, we're not going to convince eachother.
The verses you point out are some of the most difficult to understand. At first glance they even appear to be in contradiction with the perfect example of the Father we have in the life of Jesus. But if you consider these verses from the perspective of the people to who they were originally written, they begin to make sense.
In the old testament, Christ had not yet come and the Isralites were God's chosen people. Because of God's love and his sacrifice, salvation is now available to all. Anyone who accepts Jesus is now counted among God's chosen. The wages of sin is death. It still is, but now the debt has been paid if we choose to accept it. If we don't, in the end we must pay the price ourselves as did many in the old testament who oposed God's chosen people. In the old testament, nations were judged by how they treated God's people.
A servant is to love his master as he does Christ, just as we are to love our neighbors and even our enemies. This is not saying a slave should worship his master as God. If you study the rest of God's word, this is redily apparent.
Re:No moral values ever stood a thousand years
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 0
No sophistry here, just clear reasoning. I'm trying to help you understand this. If you're not intersted in that, there's really not much I can say to convince you. The point I was trying to make is the difference between voluntarily selling yourself as a slave because of hardships vs. being forced into it against your will. None of the verses you bring up support the latter.
Concerning children, just because you're innocent doesn't mean you'll get a perfect life. The decisions your parents make will affect you. When you make a decision, the consiquences are not limited to you, but affect your family as well. That's just the way it is.
As far as polygomy is concerned, the verses you bring up don't condemn it or condone it. However other verses do indicate what God's intended purpose is:
For this reasin a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the *two* shall become one flesh - Matthew 19:5
Re:No moral values ever stood a thousand years
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 0
I won't try to wriggle out of it, as you say. Just explain my understanding. It was a common practice in those days for people to sell themselves into servitude for a period of time to pay off debts and the like. These verses put limits on the period of time a person can be a slave so they have an opportunity to change their minds after a few years. Nowhere does it say that forcing a Hebrew into slavery against their will is okay.
If a man buys a maidservant to be his sons wife, he has to deal with her like his own daughter. He can't sell her to a strange nation just because he didn't like her. And if he gets someone else, he can't stop supporting her. It's putting limits on the practice of voluntarily selling yourself or children into servitude. This is not about involuntary slavery.
Re:No moral values ever stood a thousand years
on
Colin Powell Resigns
·
· Score: 1
I disagree. What about the less popular moral values like, a man laying with another man as a man lays with a woman is an abomination. (One that is forgivable for those who repent because of Christ's sacrifice) The truth is enternal and unchanging. God's laws are just as immutable as the laws of physics. I can understand why this is an uncomfortable notion for people who don't like God's laws. They would prefer to see them as out-moded or uninlightened. But they don't stop being true just because you don't like them or can't twist them justify your lifestyle. I didn't invent these morals or pull them out of the air or arive at them after getting a consensus of my peers. If any of those were the case then I would agree with you.
Slashdot Mirror
When God created free will He created the potential for evil. Not quite the same thing. He created us with the freedom to choose to follow His will or to not follow His will. Evil, by definition, is anything that goes against God's will. His told us what His will is in His word. Disease, infirmity, calamity, destrution, sin and death are not what He wants for us. They result from turning away from God's will. That is why there is evil in the world.
You might as well ask why there is any evil in the world at all. The answer is because of Adam's sin. The thief is the ruler of this world. Adam haded his authority over to him when he sinned, but God has a plan to bring the world back into his perfect will. It just hasn't all played out yet.
"Be thankful you are not my student. You would not :-)" - Andy Tanenbaum to Linus, Jan 30 '92
get a high grade for such a design
Why would you mix your business logic with your layout just because you're using PHP? If you do you've got no one to blame but yourself. How is this the fault of the language? Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's recomended. I wrote a php templating system if 5 lines of code:
function include_tpl($file, $vars = array())
{
extract($vars);
include($file);
}
there. done. Now you put all your layout in php files maked template and your business logic php code can just include the templates by calling the above function.
You're confusing theories and ideas with truths. Theories are tools for navigating a complex world. You ideas and thoughts don't make a whit of difference to what actually *is*. Truth is what is, regardless of what our conceptions are. Truth exists outside our conceptions. We simply try to discover it and aproximate it as best we can.
Well, what did Jesus have to say about it?
"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." - John 10:10
The tsunami caused death an destruction, therefor it did not come from God. There, that wasn't so hard now was it?
Ah yes... someone who understands. Evil greedy corporations who care for nothing but the bottom line... sounds horrible until you consider it a little further. They care for nothing but making a profit. What is profit? Profit is making more money than you spend. What is money? Money is a representation of value. They care for nothing but creating that which is valuable to the rest of society, stuff the rest of society will give a representation of value in exchange for, while at the same time consuming as little valueable stuff as possible. The problem is not the corporation or their motivations, the problem is fixing the system so there are no hidden costs and no one can push their costs onto others, like in the case of polution, or government subsidies.
This already happens. Stock options have been counted as an expense for tax purposes for a very long time. Remeber back durring the boom how Cisco payed no taxes even though they were one of the most profitable companies in the tech industry? It was because they reported stock options as an expense to the IRS and not to wall street. I think a better solution to all this would be simply to tax coporations (at a very low rate) on reported profits. Don't let them keep two sets of books. It'll help keep them honest. If they lie about profits to wall street, then they have to pay taxes on profit they didn't really make.
Highlander II? What are you talking about? There was no Highlander II. Even the writer and director of Highlander III admited there was never a Highlander II.
I think you got it. We do have a common starting premise, that Jesus was a real person who lived and made the claims recorded in the gospels. You are correct that something can be internally logically consistent and still be based on an assumption. That, in and of itself doesn't mean that it is valid or invalid. That's what makes it a philosophy instead of a scientific theory. I don't think you're claiming that all philosophy is not worth discussion because it can't be validated or justified using logic. An incorrect philosophy can be invalidated by showing it is not internally consistent, but it can't be validated by definition. If it could be, then it would be a theory, not a philosophy.
My hypothesis is that God did this intentionally so as not to violate our free will. It takes an act of faith to believe in God's word. It cannot be decided for you with a chain of logic. It also takes an act of faith to reject it. You must decide on faith that even though it cannot be invalidated, it is not true because you just don't think it's true.
The statement "anyone with black skin is subhuman" is a fallicy because it can be disproven. Blacks and whites are the same species because they can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. So this example does not illustrate your point, but I agree with you that if you cannot agree on a starting premise you cannot have a meaningfull discussion.
Correct, God's word cannot be justified or validated using logical principals. Niether can it be invalidated, as it is internally logically consistent. You run into the problem of self-evident base assumptions that cannot be justified as with any correct chain of reasoning. The infinite chain problem.
If there is some logical fallicy in my chain of reasoning please point it out. Here is what I'm proposing:
A man named Jesus said that He is the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by Him. He claimed to be the son of God, the jewish messiah. He claimed that the jewish scriptures are the word of God, and that He came to fulfull the promises given in these scriptures. That He lived and claimed these things is not in dispute. It is recorded more thoroughly than any other event from antiquity. Logic dictates one of two things, either He was telling the truth, or He was a liar. It cannot be both. If He was telling the truth, then there is no other way to the Father. All other religions that claim to provide a path to God are false. If He was a liar, then He was not who He claimed. His statements are worth no more than any other liar or dilusional fool. He is the greatest liar in the history of man kind as no other figure in history can claim His following. If He is a liar, then you are correct, it is pure arrogance for Him to have claimed that no one comes to the Father but by Him.
This is where the chain of logic ends. The next step, either for or against, cannot be dictated through logic or reason. You either take it on faith that what Jesus claimed is true, or that it and the whole of God's word is complete and utter fiction. To do otherwise would be logically inconsistent with Jesus's claims.
Again, if you feel I've made a logical fallicy in my chain of reasoning, please point it out. I accept that I am capable of error.
Fundamentalism is thrown around like a dirty word. Believing unconditionally and uncompromisingly in the truth is a good thing. You appear to believe unconditionally and uncompromisingly in the sanctity of sound reason, that logic cannot contradict itself, so you too are a fundamentalist. Believing unconditionally and uncompromisingly in a lie leads to death. That much is abundantly clear.
If Jesus was not the son of God, then by his own words He is a liar and a deciever of a large portion of the human race, more so by far than any other person who has ever lived. I think you'll see that there are no logical fallicies in the reasonings I've given (if there are, I'll be happy to correct them) My beliefs as far as they are consistent with God's word are also logically consistent. They are however based on core assumptions that cannot be justified or invalidated with logic. These must be taken on faith. In fact, it all comes down to that one core assumption, that Jesus was in fact, exactly who he claimed to be. I think God set it up this way intentionally so as not to violate our ability to choose. If we could justify or invalidate His word with logic alone, there really wouldn't be any choice.
I have faith that the philosophy layed out in God's word does in fact hold more truth than other incompatible philosophies. It holds *the* truth. Just because it cannot be proven using logical techniques does not mean it is not so, so long as it connot also be disproven.
This is the choice you are faced with. Either you accept that Jesus is who He says He is, or accept that He is the greatest liar who ever lived. There is no in-between. Logic and reason demand it. God loves you and sent His son to save your life. Choose to live.
I do not perscribe to moral relativism. I also realize that I am a fallable human being who can mistiakes in judgement about what is right and what is wrong. Me saying that something is right or wrong doesn't affect it's rightness or wrongness any more than when popular culture says it. What makes it right or wrong is when God says it. I choose to take it on faith that Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be, and that He is the perfect representation of the Father (He said, if you seen me you've seen the Father). If He's not then He's a liar and noone should listen to a word He said. When popular culture, moral relativisim, or you or I dissagree with what God says, we're wrong. We would have been wrong 1000 years ago, we would still be wrong 1000 years from now.
That being said, God loves homosexuals. He died to save them just as he died to save you and I and all other sinners. I understand that some people can be born with a genetic predisposition for it just as people can be born with a genetic predisposition for all kinds of disorders. I also believe that some people choose it or are driven to it because of mollestation or other environmental influences. I believe in God's power, willingness, and ability to heal in all cases.
I'm aware of that. The crux of my argument here is that it is a currently held popular belief that's wrong. That fact that it's been popular in the past in other cultures doesn't change that. What I'm saying is that popularity has no bearing on truth, either in the positive or the negative. There might be a correlation in some cases, but not causation.
Gah! Kids are individuals damit! What kind of a screwed up education system can take a child's natural curiosity, wonder and desire to learn and squash it like a bug?!? How can you allow yourself to be a party to that? Instead of throwing up your hands and saying "the state made me do it!", you need to be working from the inside to advocate change. This is just wrong! The whole concept of assembly line, cookie cutter education is just plain wrong!
Eh? how so? I'm repeating what Jesus taught. At least, that's what I'm trying to do. I'm open to the possiblity that I might be confused about some point of it. Gods laws are eternal and unchanging. We are sinful and incapable of following the law perfectly. Jesus came to save us and pay the price for our sin. Now God's laws are written on our hearts (when we accept Christ). The laws haven't changed, they've been fulfilled for us. We still sin, but now we have redemption. Because of Christ living inside us, we strive to live like he did. That's sort of the whole point of Christianity. You should look into it, you might like what you find.
?!? Why are you upset at me? I didn't write it, I'm trying to explain my view of it. How many ways do I have to say it? Forced slavery is horrible. It's wrong. It's sinful. It's evil. Did you read it that time? Have I made myself clear? Which part of it are you still confused about? Choosing to enter into a contract where you serve unconditionally for seven years for chunk of cash to pay off debts or rescue your family from a bad situation is a serious thing that should not be under taken lightly. It is not however completely untennable or sinfull. Mistreating your servants is not a good way of showing Christ's love, even if it is your legal right. And under the law of Moses, under no circumstance is it legal to kill a servant. Clearly none of this applies to our current legal system, and that's not a bad thing.
Look, like I said, If you want to prove the bible is wrong, we're just going to continue to talk past each other. An "enlightened" Christian who disreagards Jesus own claim that scripture is God's word is not really following Christ is he?
As I stated before, the references to slavery are referring to the voluntary practice of selling yourself into servitude for a time. If you do this, you should hold up your end and serve with all your abilities. It's similar to employment but with longer terms. If you are forced into slavery, this is bad and your master is sinful. You should still love him and serve him and be an example of Christ to him. Maybe he'll learn from you and accept Christ!
Like I said before, selling your children into servitude is the result of bad choices made by parents putting them in that situation. Choices have consiquences. This isn't an endorsement. Clearly such situations are regretable.
Mankind is the glory of God, and woman is the glory of man. This makes women the glory of God's glory. Women are submit (voluntarily) to their husbands and men are to love their wives. Husbands are not to force their wives into submision. Women and men have different roles in the family. One is not more or less important than the other. If more people practiced this do you think we would have such a problem with divorce and broken homes and families! I recognize that these ideas are severely unpopular but that doesn't negate their truth.
:) Very entertaining read. Seriously though, you're missing the whole part about being redeemed from the curse of the law. If we accept Jesus, God's laws are written on our hearts. A common misunderstanding.
The wages of sin is death. That's why we need to be saved. *You* forgot the rest of the Bible, the part that starts in Matthew.
they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.
"Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"
They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.
But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.
When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.
Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"
She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."
- John 8:4-11
God's immutable word has been recorded in scripture, unchanged, for thousands of years. That's what I was referring to. Not human interpretations, sects, or movements.
I'm not trying to be condescending. I was pointing out that if you approach the subject from the viewpoint of trying to prove the bible wrong rather than honestly seeking to understand it, we're not going to convince eachother.
The verses you point out are some of the most difficult to understand. At first glance they even appear to be in contradiction with the perfect example of the Father we have in the life of Jesus. But if you consider these verses from the perspective of the people to who they were originally written, they begin to make sense.
In the old testament, Christ had not yet come and the Isralites were God's chosen people. Because of God's love and his sacrifice, salvation is now available to all. Anyone who accepts Jesus is now counted among God's chosen. The wages of sin is death. It still is, but now the debt has been paid if we choose to accept it. If we don't, in the end we must pay the price ourselves as did many in the old testament who oposed God's chosen people. In the old testament, nations were judged by how they treated God's people.
A servant is to love his master as he does Christ, just as we are to love our neighbors and even our enemies. This is not saying a slave should worship his master as God. If you study the rest of God's word, this is redily apparent.
No sophistry here, just clear reasoning. I'm trying to help you understand this. If you're not intersted in that, there's really not much I can say to convince you. The point I was trying to make is the difference between voluntarily selling yourself as a slave because of hardships vs. being forced into it against your will. None of the verses you bring up support the latter.
Concerning children, just because you're innocent doesn't mean you'll get a perfect life. The decisions your parents make will affect you. When you make a decision, the consiquences are not limited to you, but affect your family as well. That's just the way it is.
As far as polygomy is concerned, the verses you bring up don't condemn it or condone it. However other verses do indicate what God's intended purpose is:
For this reasin a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the *two* shall become one flesh - Matthew 19:5
I won't try to wriggle out of it, as you say. Just explain my understanding. It was a common practice in those days for people to sell themselves into servitude for a period of time to pay off debts and the like. These verses put limits on the period of time a person can be a slave so they have an opportunity to change their minds after a few years. Nowhere does it say that forcing a Hebrew into slavery against their will is okay.
If a man buys a maidservant to be his sons wife, he has to deal with her like his own daughter. He can't sell her to a strange nation just because he didn't like her. And if he gets someone else, he can't stop supporting her. It's putting limits on the practice of voluntarily selling yourself or children into servitude. This is not about involuntary slavery.
I disagree. What about the less popular moral values like, a man laying with another man as a man lays with a woman is an abomination. (One that is forgivable for those who repent because of Christ's sacrifice) The truth is enternal and unchanging. God's laws are just as immutable as the laws of physics. I can understand why this is an uncomfortable notion for people who don't like God's laws. They would prefer to see them as out-moded or uninlightened. But they don't stop being true just because you don't like them or can't twist them justify your lifestyle. I didn't invent these morals or pull them out of the air or arive at them after getting a consensus of my peers. If any of those were the case then I would agree with you.