(July 9, 2015 at 12:51 pm)tonechaser77 Wrote: 1.) My view of slavery is not narrow by any means.

Does your definition embody paid employment? no you say? then your definition is not as expanded as the greek word used in the NT to describe slavery.

Quote: It's the same view that others held when they finally realized this is not the way the world should work. I can't believe you honestly expect anyone to believe that people support biblical slavery today by renaming slavery to "work".

That is literally because your definition of slavery is not as expansive as the greek word dullos. Because again the word dullos can mean a paid employee/servant. Matter of fact the word is used interchangeably with slave/servant over 120 times, with contextual preference being the only divider in the text.

In the greek there are 5 different words with 5 different aspects or meanings that we in the English translate into the single word 'love.' the same is true here with the word slave, but in reverse. The greeks have one word to describe 5 different aspects of 'service/employment' in the English.

Just because a literal translation will always translate Dullos into Slave/Servant does not mean that the bible is speaking of the 17th century cotton plantation variety.

Quote:So no, I won't accept your false equivocation. The tenants were far different. The biblical form of slavery was a clear violation to human rights and the consequences for disobedience were FAR more immoral then consequences for disobedience at work under a modern U.S. like society. The last time I checked my employer couldn't beat me if I didn't show up to work. 

Again you are only describing one aspect of slavery.

Quote:2.) The metaphor itself is a true metaphor. The idea behind is what is inexplicably false and should be admonished. The theology behind the slave / eunuch cast system represented in the OT is quite clear in showing the once slave willingly return to his master to become his literal property and be castrated as a eunuch. This is big brother 101 like I mentioned before. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is good. Questioning is bad. 

Ok... So?

You do understand That the Old Testament represents a completely different religion that is no longer practiced anywhere in the world right? That is why in the New testament OT Jews who Practiced the rules and regulations found in the NT were known to have been converted To Christianity correct? And you are aware that The way 'slaves' were viewed and treated was indeed augmented from the Old to the New covenants right?

Quote:3.) If your will is superceded to your master, god, then we have a real problem because i know you're going to start with "knowing god's will" by what he says in the bible. How do you know it's actually his word?

That's a simple question to answer.
I know the bible is God's word, because in the bible are a set of direction for one to literally find and have a interactive relationship with him.
I found and followed said instructions, resulting in promised relationship with the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the bible in the first place. it is through the Holy Spirit that God's bible has been verified.

Quote: Because the bible says so.

Actually it happens in reverse order. I know or am given a precept and then verify it in the bible through study.

Quote: But why believe the bible? Because it's the infallible word of god.....

Actually the bible only claims to ever be the truth of God, and the tool used to find God. With in the pages of the bible it never claims to be infallible.

Quote:and here we go with the same old circular arguments.

Uh.. no. try again sport.

Quote:The bible is in fact, the reason I become a non-believer. When it's looked at in the correct manner, conflicting stories, atrocities, misogyny, injustice, cruelty and violence etc. it's easy to see that it is not the inspired word of god, but written by many humans, with differing viewpoints, all of which have been the cause of mass confusion. It's why there are so many sects of christianity. The can't all be right...and how do you decide which one is? Oh I know,  A/S/K.  No, that's nonsense because the answer you receive is purely subjective to what you think anyway. It's an interpretation and who's to say you're correct and the person sitting next to you isn't? 

Sorry Brich but the rationalizations just don't add up regardless of the spin you or anyone else puts on them.

examples?

You know, seeing as I'm debating Randy on another Thread I was reluctant to poke my nose in on this one but theres just so many mistakes about basic matters of translation and doctrine Drich I can't resist.

(July 9, 2015 at 1:27 pm)Drich Wrote: Does your definition embody paid employment? no you say? then your definition is not as expanded as the greek word used in the NT to describe slavery.

That is literally because your definition of slavery is not as expansive as the greek word dullos. Because again the word dullos can mean a paid employee/servant. Matter of fact the word is used interchangeably with slave/servant over 120 times, with contextual preference being the only divider in the text.

In the greek there are 5 different words with 5 different aspects or meanings that we in the English translate into the single word 'love.' the same is true here with the word slave, but in reverse. The greeks have one word to describe 5 different aspects of 'service/employment' in the English.

Just because a literal translation will always translate Dullos into Slave/Servant does not mean that the bible is speaking of the 17th century cotton plantation variety.

 http://biblehub.com/greek/1401.htm

Doulous, always and without exception in Koine Greek refers to a bond slave. You're quite right to say there were many different words to describe the status of a servant, but Doulous always refers to the lowest of the low, the slaves you can rape or kill at your leisure.

That's why it is chosen when used in non-literal references to Jesus, you are worthless before him, whatever worth you have is whatever he elects to elevate you to by his power and not your own alone.

Quote:Again you are only describing one aspect of slavery.

The NT is pretty explicit in terminology which form it describes.

Quote:Ok... So?

You do understand That the Old Testament represents a completely different religion that is no longer practiced anywhere in the world right? That is why in the New testament OT Jews who Practiced the rules and regulations found in the NT were known to have been converted To Christianity correct? And you are aware that The way 'slaves' were viewed and treated was indeed augmented from the Old to the New covenants right?

Not really, at least in the OT slaves had to be freed after a period of time, in the NT there is no obligation for them to be freed; you recall Paul's instruction to Philemon surely?

Quote:That's a simple question to answer.
I know the bible is God's word, because in the bible are a set of direction for one to literally find and have a interactive relationship with him.
I found and followed said instructions, resulting in promised relationship with the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the bible in the first place. it is through the Holy Spirit that God's bible has been verified.

A book compiled by the Orthodox and Catholic Churches almost four hundred years after the foundation of Christianity. It always amuses me how "Bible Belivers" always refer to a textbook created by one of two institutions they fully believe to be pagan or heretical.

Why don't you just start quoting Anton LaVey or The Kama Sutra while you're at it plagiarizing other faiths eh?

Quote:Actually it happens in reverse order. I know or am given a precept and then verify it in the bible through study.

Again, compiled by one of two institutions you believe to be pagan.

Quote:Actually the bible only claims to ever be the truth of God, and the tool used to find God. With in the pages of the bible it never claims to be infallible.

The bible was created by the Early Church as a repository of sacred literature to be used buy ecclesiastical figures. Most of the Hellenistic world couldn't read, and it was never intended to be read by the masses at large.

It's a tool for clerics so it should be no great suprise you won't find it claiming to be the be all and end all; because their authority was not that of the book.

Quote:examples?

http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

Anyone can pick up a bible and find evidence to justify just about anything.

(July 9, 2015 at 11:11 am)Drich Wrote: Not bad, except you left out you truly don't have a mind of your own now, just an illusion of it.

I wish I could stick this on the home page in bold giant letters as the definitive Christian teaching. Drich speaks for the Church. Show me the post where Randy or the Catholic Lady contradict him.

(July 9, 2015 at 11:26 am)Drich Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 5:55 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: John 8:31-32
"To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
Then you will know the truth and the truth will make you free."

Jesus and Paul seem to have a difference of opinion here. Don't know whose slave you are Drich, since if you're following Jesus, the man said you will be free.

Free from what should be you question... If you had (or simply kept reading) you would clearly see that the freedom Jesus was speaking of was freedom from sin and the consenquences of sin.

33 They answered, “We are Abraham’s descendants. And we have never been slaves. So why do you say that we will be free?”

34 Jesus said, “The truth is, everyone who sins is a slave—a slave to sin.

I see you conveniently left out verse 35

John 8:35 Wrote:35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever

Jesus doesn't free people from slavery to sin to make them slaves to himself but to make them sons. So he is still disagreeing with Paul.

Though I have yet to meet the Christian who does not sin so this is yet another false promise.

(July 9, 2015 at 6:13 am)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(July 8, 2015 at 5:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: You really find it necessary to use such language, it shows your lack of confidence in your own argument. Like I said, freewill, man doesn't have, choice we do. Freewill is never mentioned nor implied in the Bible, so why not make the argument on freewill existing for man, this would be a relevant argument.  The only real choice we have is in choosing Christ, as I said after that God will use people to further His ultimate will, it's His creation and thus His will upon it is dominant. I'm not saying that God doesn't allow us to make many decisions for ourselves, He does, this is quite apparent.
Also, I said that most Christians use the word freewill in place of choice far to often and I'm as guilty of this as the next, I'm going to try and change this, though habit takes time to change.
If we had real freewill we would be able to over ride God's ultimate will and that want happen, His plan is set and that's the way it will be, period.

GC

1 Corinthians 12:3
No one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.

So, no GC, we don't have freewill to do that according to Paul. But as I told Drich, Jesus has something else to say.

I just proved Paul wrong by saying "Jesus is Lord." If I can only do that in the Holy Spirit then how can I, in the same breath, say "Fuck Jesus?"

I see you're using the ignorance of your fellow atheist to promote yourself again, have you no shame. Thought you could fool me too, I assume. Let's show everyone what you left out.
1 Corinthians 12:2-3 You know when you were pagans, you were led astray to the dumb idols, however you were led. 3) Therefore I make it know to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God say, "Jesus is accursed;" and no one can say , "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

First of all in the simplest explanation, of the above verses, Paul was saying no one can confess Jesus as Savior unless that person has the knowledge from the Holy Spirit, (Jesus told Peter the same thing when he said to Jesus, "You are the Son of God"). Being that you do not believe Jesus is the Son of God you haven't done anything but utter a few words that have no meaning to you. Since you didn't do the former as scriptures says, you most certainly did the latter as scripture says. By the words from Paul through the Holy Spirit you have been a deceiver to your fellow atheist and a liar to yourself, all known to God your judge.

GC

(July 9, 2015 at 1:27 pm)Drich Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 12:51 pm)tonechaser77 Wrote: 1.) My view of slavery is not narrow by any means.

Does your definition embody paid employment? no you say? then your definition is not as expanded as the greek word used in the NT to describe slavery.

Quote: It's the same view that others held when they finally realized this is not the way the world should work. I can't believe you honestly expect anyone to believe that people support biblical slavery today by renaming slavery to "work".

That is literally because your definition of slavery is not as expansive as the greek word dullos. Because again the word dullos can mean a paid employee/servant. Matter of fact the word is used interchangeably with slave/servant over 120 times, with contextual preference being the only divider in the text.

In the greek there are 5 different words with 5 different aspects or meanings that we in the English translate into the single word 'love.' the same is true here with the word slave, but in reverse. The greeks have one word to describe 5 different aspects of 'service/employment' in the English.

Just because a literal translation will always translate Dullos into Slave/Servant does not mean that the bible is speaking of the 17th century cotton plantation variety.

Quote:So no, I won't accept your false equivocation. The tenants were far different. The biblical form of slavery was a clear violation to human rights and the consequences for disobedience were FAR more immoral then consequences for disobedience at work under a modern U.S. like society. The last time I checked my employer couldn't beat me if I didn't show up to work. 

Again you are only describing one aspect of slavery.

Quote:2.) The metaphor itself is a true metaphor. The idea behind is what is inexplicably false and should be admonished. The theology behind the slave / eunuch cast system represented in the OT is quite clear in showing the once slave willingly return to his master to become his literal property and be castrated as a eunuch. This is big brother 101 like I mentioned before. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is good. Questioning is bad. 

Ok... So?

You do understand That the Old Testament represents a completely different religion that is no longer practiced anywhere in the world right? That is why in the New testament OT Jews who Practiced the rules and regulations found in the NT were known to have been converted To Christianity correct? And you are aware that The way 'slaves' were viewed and treated was indeed augmented from the Old to the New covenants right?

Quote:3.) If your will is superceded to your master, god, then we have a real problem because i know you're going to start with "knowing god's will" by what he says in the bible. How do you know it's actually his word?

That's a simple question to answer.
I know the bible is God's word, because in the bible are a set of direction for one to literally find and have a interactive relationship with him.
I found and followed said instructions, resulting in promised relationship with the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the bible in the first place. it is through the Holy Spirit that God's bible has been verified.

Quote: Because the bible says so.

Actually it happens in reverse order. I know or am given a precept and then verify it in the bible through study.

Quote: But why believe the bible? Because it's the infallible word of god.....

Actually the bible only claims to ever be the truth of God, and the tool used to find God. With in the pages of the bible it never claims to be infallible.

Quote:and here we go with the same old circular arguments.

Uh.. no. try again sport.

Quote:The bible is in fact, the reason I become a non-believer. When it's looked at in the correct manner, conflicting stories, atrocities, misogyny, injustice, cruelty and violence etc. it's easy to see that it is not the inspired word of god, but written by many humans, with differing viewpoints, all of which have been the cause of mass confusion. It's why there are so many sects of christianity. The can't all be right...and how do you decide which one is? Oh I know,  A/S/K.  No, that's nonsense because the answer you receive is purely subjective to what you think anyway. It's an interpretation and who's to say you're correct and the person sitting next to you isn't? 

Sorry Brich but the rationalizations just don't add up regardless of the spin you or anyone else puts on them.

examples?

All this is completely beside the point. Even if I grant you every point that you have made, what you're left with in regards to slavery is a view of moral relativism and fluidity where the system gradually regresses to the point we are at today. I just so happen to agree that this is what happened, however not by any inspiration of god. 

Quote:You do understand That the Old Testament represents a completely different religion that is no longer practiced anywhere in the world right? That is why in the New testament OT Jews who Practiced the rules and regulations found in the NT were known to have been converted To Christianity correct? And you are aware that The way 'slaves' were viewed and treated was indeed augmented from the Old to the New covenants right?

You agree that the god of the NT is the god of the OT right? And I would hope you would agree that the form of slavery practiced in the OT was horrendous and not how people should have been treated regardless of who they were.  So you would agree that god commanded or in the LEAST condoned horrendous acts in the past then. Let's hope you've forgiven him for that. 

The problem is that you and the biblical writers take one word (in this case the word for slavery) and assign multiple meanings from the worst possible definition to the best possible definition. What does this cause? Major confusion, which your god is not the author of, at least I thought. Just think; god, in his infinite wisdom and omnipotence, could have avoided all the pain and suffering caused from slavery (regardless of the what definition you use for it)  by simply adjudicating it from the very beginning. It could have been one of the 600+ laws in the Torah. Problem solved. He certainly didn't tolerate children being unruly, as they received a death sentence. Why didn't he show the same intolerance for slavery?   

Quote:I know the bible is God's word, because in the bible are a set of direction for one to literally find and have a interactive relationship with him.

I found and followed said instructions, resulting in promised relationship with the Holy Spirit. The same Holy Spirit that inspired the bible in the first place. it is through the Holy Spirit that God's bible has been verified.

What you have a relationship with is your mind and confirmation bias. That's where all this rests. As I stated before, there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a god. The god of the gaps argument is closing by the minute and if god exists, it sure doesn't seem to care about making himself known in a way that would truly be seen and accepted by everyone. And why would he not do this? Why would he not want all to believe? Your statement about the holy spirit is merely an argument from religious experience, a self-authenticating mystical mind set. 

Your system is broke. It doesn't stand up to reason and logic and I sure hope that someday you will see that. In the mean time, if you continue to believe, and I have no doubt that you will, I just hope that you are at least acting in a way that will help people, in our world as we know it. I may not come to agreement with you concerning god or anything spiritual but we should at least be able to work together to change the world with regards to poverty, slavery, human rights, clean water, disease eradication, etc. I wish you the best Brich. 

(July 7, 2015 at 6:48 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

(July 6, 2015 at 9:46 pm)KUSA Wrote: The devil was in heaven and told Yahweh to fuck off.

Good point, obviously the devil displayed free will, so I guess you have yet another contradiction in the bible. Either you have free will in heaven or god has everyone in a constant state of bliss, cant have both.

Everyone seems to be missing the point of the fairy tale.  All beings, humans, angels, demons, Satan, etc., have free will until Judgment Day.  According to the script Satan is incorrigible.  Even though he's on speaking terms with God and Jesus he's bad to the bone and always takes the mean road.  Now we know that in the Bible God is responsible for 99.999999% of the bad things but that's another story.  

So throught the fairy tale Satan and his gang have free rein to do a few bad things, nothing really major from our point of view.  He will eventually get tossed into the dungeon but will make parole.  He actually tries to save humanity from the homicidal maniac Jesus but fails.  He and his gang get tossed into the lake of fire and that's that for them.

Meanwhile humans shuffle along in this mudhole enduring all kinds of misfortunes.  Then, whamo, it's Judgment Day and everyone has to show up in court.  The problem is that the old heaven and old Earth no longer exist and the new Earth has a giant golden cube on it called New Jerusalem.  It has twelve gates, one for each of the twelve tribes of Israel but none for the Gentiles.  So how can Gentiles get into the Jewish city of New Jerusalem when there's no gate for them to pass through?

No things are looking bad for the Gentiles because they don't have a hevean or a golden cube to call their own.  But the lake of fire is really bubbling and it's calling for more bodies.  While Satan, the false prophet, and the beast will be tortured forever in the lake of fire the fairy tale hints at a second death for the Gentiles who end up there.  

Now for the herd that makes it into the golden cube the fairy tale says that they will be changed in the blink of an eye.  There are no marriages in heaven so forget about sex and families.  But they will still be able to eat and drink water, which God doles out on  rigid schedule.  Of course they will have to sing God's praises 24/7/365 for eternity but they will escape the lake of fire.  

Meantime, the muslims are banging away in paradise, drinking wine, and playing with cute boys.  Figure that out.

The Mormon guys have become gods, each with his own private world and harem churning out babies like termites.

The Vikings are on an eternal binge in Valhalla.  Their bar tag is going to be astromonical.

The American Indians and in their happy hunting grounds hunting big game with bows and arrows.

Someone somewhere is being reincarnated and bossing around his slaves.      

Who has free will?

(July 9, 2015 at 2:09 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 11:26 am)Drich Wrote: Free from what should be you question... If you had (or simply kept reading) you would clearly see that the freedom Jesus was speaking of was freedom from sin and the consenquences of sin.

33 They answered, “We are Abraham’s descendants. And we have never been slaves. So why do you say that we will be free?”

34 Jesus said, “The truth is, everyone who sins is a slave—a slave to sin.

I see you conveniently left out verse 35

John 8:35 Wrote:35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever

Jesus doesn't free people from slavery to sin to make them slaves to himself but to make them sons. So he is still disagreeing with Paul.

Though I have yet to meet the Christian who does not sin so this is yet another false promise.

Now ask yourself what is a son of God. Jesus is the Son of God, but obviously this is not what is being discussed. Jesus gives us incite to what He means if you read the rest of the chapter when He is speaking about who the father of the pharrisees is and what they must do to earn that title. In kind the same applies to the 'sons' of God. We also see in the very definition of the word huios (the word used for sons) in this application this context it describes not only the joy a child would experience with their parent but unwavering obedience and devotion to God.

D:
those who revere God as their father, the pious worshippers of God, those who in character and life resemble God, those who are governed by the Spirit of God, repose the same calm and joyful trust in God which children do in their parents (Rom. 8:14, Gal. 3:26 ), and hereafter in the blessedness and glory of the life eternal will openly wear this dignity of the sons of God. Term used preeminently of Jesus Christ, as enjoying the supreme love of God, united to him in affectionate intimacy, privy to his saving councils, obedient to the Father's will in all his acts
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexi...5207&t=NIV

While Christ truly offers a place as a 'son' of God, we will still be expected to put the will of the Father over that of our own just as He did on the cross.

(July 9, 2015 at 3:01 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(July 9, 2015 at 6:13 am)Rhondazvous Wrote: 1 Corinthians 12:3
No one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.

So, no GC, we don't have freewill to do that according to Paul. But as I told Drich, Jesus has something else to say.

I just proved Paul wrong by saying "Jesus is Lord." If I can only do that in the Holy Spirit then how can I, in the same breath, say "Fuck Jesus?"

I see you're using the ignorance of your fellow atheist to promote yourself again, have you no shame. Thought you could fool me too, I assume. Let's show everyone what you left out.
1 Corinthians 12:2-3 You know when you were pagans, you were led astray to the dumb idols, however you were led. 3) Therefore I make it know to you, that no one speaking by the Spirit of God say, "Jesus is accursed;" and no one can say , "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

First of all in the simplest explanation, of the above verses, Paul was saying no one can confess Jesus as Savior unless that person has the knowledge from the Holy Spirit, (Jesus told Peter the same thing when he said to Jesus, "You are the Son of God"). Being that you do not believe Jesus is the Son of God you haven't done anything but utter a few words that have no meaning to you. Since you didn't do the former as scriptures says, you most certainly did the latter as scripture says. By the words from Paul through the Holy Spirit you have been a deceiver to your fellow atheist and a liar to yourself, all known to God your judge.

GC

Adding the other part of that passage does not change the meaning of the part I quoted. And my original asswerion that you are wrong abot us having a choice to accept Jesus still stands.

Mark 4: 110-13 Wrote:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see , and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear , and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted , and their sins should be forgiven them. 13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

I have the freewill to fornicate or abstain from it. I am no slave, but according to this passage there are some whom Jesus did not want to be saved. If anybody goes to hell, this passage says it's because Jesus did not want them to be forgiven. That's cool with me, If a god who doesn't exist wants to hide himself from me then well.


You and Drich say we never had freewill. Ohther Christians say God allowed sin because he eanted us to have freewill. And you all read the same Bible and accuse each other of misinterpreting it. I have no use for a book that's so open to interpretation that no one can agree about what even the slightest thing means.

tonechaser77 Wrote:All this is beside the point...

Everything they've said is beside the point. Their premise is that we as humans have no freewill. Are we supposed to believe this just because the Bible says it? Why argue about something that is so manifestly untrue. Could this be a smoke screen? Drich especially likes to hi-jack my threads.