To Christians...Theocracy?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hell makes any argument from free will vapid; there can be no free will when exercising it contrary to your god's wishes result in damnation.

Arguing otherwise is the equivalent of declaring the armed robber innocent because after all, his victim did not have to surrender his money, he only chose to do so -- never mind the gun pointed at his head.

No will is truly free when one's soul is held hostage.

Only if you insist that hell isn't a correctional facility, Gods method of posthumously enforcing justice. I do so I don't have your problem.

At this point, your problem becomes the immorailty of eternal torment for sin, proclaimed as the judgment of a just and merciful god.

[fr0d0]

I don't have to justify your theology PT. My theology is different.

[Grasshopper]

And no- I'm not condoning slavery or the fact that god refrained from saying anything against it.

Your god didn't just "refrain from saying anything against it" -- he laid down rules for the practice of chattel slavery, giving it the imprimatur of Godly approval. What does that say about his perfection?

I was just putting into perspective what must've occurred to the writers of the laws (CLEARLY written by men) it wasn't that big a deal back then as it is now.

And that undercuts any moral authority the book might have.

1) yeah the writers laid down rules so it wouldn't get out of hand. They just used gods name to make it sound authoritative. For the eriters of leviticus, murder and stealing was a more serious concern. And EVEN IF God wrote these laws, isn't it better he laid out guidelines for their treatment rather than let it go on freely? You see back then they were considered human with actual rights.

2) I already said I don't take bible as moral authority. Can I help it if other people do?

3) Your post indicates anger. What are you angry about? That an imaginary person in the sky you don't believe in didn't ban slavery? Or that the Israelites had such a rule in the first place? Or that books such as leviticus were used in the past to justify horrific crimes?
Now I'm not talking as a christian I'm talking as a secularist
Let it go man. We're long past that. Your arguments would've perhaps helped reduce slavery in the 16th century. Or maybe not. Now in this century you grew up in a culture where everyone thinks slavery is wrong that's why you are against it.
If you were a 17th century colonist you perhaps wouldn't have had a slave, but you most likely wouldn't be against it either. It's all about how much we've evolved as a species.
Best not to get riled up by past events I always say. Whatever happened has happened. Yes people have been hurt and brutalized over the past 400 years but now it's gone. What's more we arose as a people ever more wiser.
And religion is an easy thing to use for bad things. But I didnt make a big deal when when I first heard Aztecs used to sacrifice people for the sun god or anything or that romans gathered in thousands to watch people get eaten by lions. You know why? It's because those things are gone and in the past. Just as slavery in Christian nations is in the past. Christianity, is following jesus and if they didn't love their neighbors, bad for them. If you're angry that a couple of imperialists used Christianity to justify their actions I'm sorry but you're born in the wrong time period. Anything can be brought up from the past to use in a bad way.
if there was anything written against slavery in the bible it would've still taken place. It would just be one of the many things modern Christians overlook like shrimp. If slavery was said to be wrong, they'd say the old testament doesn't hold for us anymore and they'd look to the romans for slavery tips

[dyresand]

1) yeah the writers laid down rules so it wouldn't get out of hand. They just used gods name to make it sound authoritative. For the eriters of leviticus, murder and stealing was a more serious concern. And EVEN IF God wrote these laws, isn't it better he laid out guidelines for their treatment rather than let it go on freely? You see back then they were considered human with actual rights.

Well... the bible is pointless in a modern age but people use it as a tool of hate like other religions and tool of fear to control the masses. Is it needed anymore no i don't think so. Does it contribute any good? hardly..

2) I already said I don't take bible as moral authority. Can I help it if other people do?

Good then we agree the bible isn't more here is a cookie.

3) Your post indicates anger. What are you angry about? That an imaginary person in the sky you don't believe in didn't ban slavery? Or that the Israelites had such a rule in the first place? Or that books such as leviticus were used in the past to justify horrific crimes?
Now I'm not talking as a christian I'm talking as a secularist
Let it go man. We're long past that. Your arguments would've perhaps helped reduce slavery in the 16th century. Or maybe not. Now in this century you grew up in a culture where everyone thinks slavery is wrong that's why you are against it.
If you were a 17th century colonist you perhaps wouldn't have had a slave, but you most likely wouldn't be against it either. It's all about how much we've evolved as a species.
Best not to get riled up by past events I always say. Whatever happened has happened. Yes people have been hurt and brutalized over the past 400 years but now it's gone. What's more we arose as a people ever more wiser.
And religion is an easy thing to use for bad things. But I didnt make a big deal when when I first heard Aztecs used to sacrifice people for the sun god or anything or that romans gathered in thousands to watch people get eaten by lions. You know why? It's because those things are gone and in the past. Just as slavery in Christian nations is in the past. Christianity, is following jesus and if they didn't love their neighbors, bad for them. If you're angry that a couple of imperialists used Christianity to justify their actions I'm sorry but you're born in the wrong time period. Anything can be brought up from the past to use in a bad way.
if there was anything written against slavery in the bible it would've still taken place. It would just be one of the many things modern Christians overlook like shrimp. If slavery was said to be wrong, they'd say the old testament doesn't hold for us anymore and they'd look to the romans for slavery tips

Anyone who was foreign to those specific areas gotten turned into slaves. The jews were the special indentured servants the only few that did want to stay were given wives so they had no point in leaving their family. The other way to become a slave is to work off your debts for the person you owed money to and even still they can get you with the whole wife deal. Only the smart ones said i don't want this.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't have to justify your theology PT. My theology is different.

I'm asking you to justify your criticism, which should be obvious to someone as seemingly intelligent as yourself. This leads me to believe you don't have a critique, or you realize that you're committing tu quoque and don't wish that to be elucidated.

In either instance, I'm entitled to regard your criticism as meaningless.

Feel free to show me otherwise.

---

Grasshopper -- I missed the part where you derided the Bible's moral authority, and thought you were defending slavery, which has happened a couple of times in the last two weeks. The defense of slavery certainly irritates me.

My apologies for my misapprehension.

[Grasshopper]

I don't have to justify your theology PT. My theology is different.

I'm asking you to justify your criticism, which should be obvious to someone as seemingly intelligent as yourself. This leads me to believe you don't have a critique, or you realize that you're committing tu quoque.

In either instance, I'm entitled to regard your criticism as.meaningless.

Feel free to show me otherwise.

---

Grasshopper -- I missed the part where you derided the Bible's moral authority, and thought you were defending slavery, which has happened a couple of times in the last two weeks. The defense of slavery certainly irritates me.

My apologies for my misapprehension.

Ya it's fine. I converted to Orthodox because I found too much rigidity in understanding and interpretation of theological subjects. When there's a central authority on subjects it becomes problematic. I respect the pope alot but can't seem to take one man's or one churches interpretation as true.

---

For example-
1) catholics believe mary had to be born especially without sin. Orthodox believe it's okay to think she's sinless but it wasn't needed. Since no one is born with sin and can live without sin.

2) other Christians believe sin is an act which god doesn't like and therefore throws you into hell for. But orthodox call sin (amartia) which is " missing the mark" which hampers our progress to perfection/ deification.

3) orthodox hell isn't a place of torture. Orthodox heaven isn't a place in the clouds.
Hell and heaven are in the same plane of existence- this one.
God's presence is seen as beautiful light by believers and fire by the hellbound.
Since believers believe they will rejoice in the light. But since nonbelievers don't believe that light will be painful. Imagine a miner underground for days. When he comes up the light troubles him. Same theory. These depictions of heaven and hell are meant to be allegorical for real life.

4) other differences-condoms aren't sinful in marriage. Sometimes divorces are necessary. But it's only valid if done in church fashion

This was just a summary of differences. Don't think I'm advertising. Thank God we have brains and a choice how to read the bible as we wish. That being said-I take only the latter part of the old testament and the entire new testament as worthy of being read

[IATIA]

... I found too much rigidity in understanding and interpretation ...

Now I understand. It is an aversion to structured discipline. Then you have no chance whatsoever of gleaning anything from a scientific or philosophical point of view.

[Grasshopper]

... I found too much rigidity in understanding and interpretation ...

Now I understand. It is an aversion to structured discipline. Then you have no chance whatsoever of gleaning anything from a scientific or philosophical point of view.

I'm sorry call me stupid but I really don't get anything you write or the relevance to the topic
I wasn't speaking of aversion. I was saying rigid beliefs are problematic. What does philosophy and science have to do with it?

[IATIA]

My point.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ya it's fine. I converted to Orthodox because I found too much rigidity in understanding and interpretation of theological subjects. When there's a central authority on subjects it becomes problematic. I respect the pope alot but can't seem to take one man's or one churches interpretation as true.

---

For example-
1) catholics believe mary had to be born especially without sin. Orthodox believe it's okay to think she's sinless but it wasn't needed. Since no one is born with sin and can live without sin.

2) other Christians believe sin is an act which god doesn't like and therefore throws you into hell for. But orthodox call sin (amartia) which is " missing the mark" which hampers our progress to perfection/ deification.

3) orthodox hell isn't a place of torture. Orthodox heaven isn't a place in the clouds.
Hell and heaven are in the same plane of existence- this one.
God's presence is seen as beautiful light by believers and fire by the hellbound.
Since believers believe they will rejoice in the light. But since nonbelievers don't believe that light will be painful. Imagine a miner underground for days. When he comes up the light troubles him. Same theory. These depictions of heaven and hell are meant to be allegorical for real life.

4) other differences-condoms aren't sinful in marriage. Sometimes divorces are necessary. But it's only valid if done in church fashion

This was just a summary of differences. Don't think I'm advertising. Thank God we have brains and a choice how to read the bible as we wish. That being said-I take only the latter part of the old testament and the entire new testament as worthy of being read

That's cool. I appreciate your consideration, and it's pretty interesting to read of some of the differences -- I'm not very informed on Orthodox doctrine. Perhaps you could start a thread on it so it doesn't get buried in this topic?

Thanks again for being generous in the face of my mistake.