Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
January 9, 2010 at 9:47 am (This post was last modified: January 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm by tackattack.)
(January 9, 2010 at 12:27 am)Samson Wrote:
Quote:not ignorance meerly looking to get a stir in the populace, unfortunately only one biter. Sorry the bait wasn't as flamboyant as fr0d0's .
Frodo knows all too well on how to bait one well…
Quote:1.If you're referring to the flogging parable in Luke 12:45-48 then read verse 41 as well which clearly states it's a parable and if read in it's entirity clearly shows the message of being patient and ready.
I wasn't referring to that verse, but it was more than just a parable..Being patient and ready if referred to as "Life" is one thing, but a mythological Dictator is another. Don't forget 1 Timothy 6 & Ephesians 6..
Quote:There was obviously slavery at the time, but I am not aware of any instance where Jesus had payed slavery much thought other than using day-to-day life as a parable for the people.
I'm not sure how you view the "God" of the O.T. and "Jesus" N.T, but you are missing the point in that "Jesus" never went against Slavery, but acknowledged it's principles and unity towards the master and his property.. Through both, Parables and his surroundings..
Quote:2. Revelations is a post Apostolic piece of literature. John Patmos’ “Revelation” is a hallucination he received while in a trance. It is a detailed prediction of the future. It was debunked early in the church by Eusebius in his detailed history of the Christian Church (c. AD 324; see his comments on "Revelation" at Eusebius 3.25). It's a large contradiction on all of the previous books before it which all (fairly uniformly) teach similar values to the accepted one's of modern Christianity. Revelations speaks heavily of salvations through works and actions, which is direct opposition to the Christian doctrine.
It's not that I don't agree with you on the "debunk bit"...But tell that to the 45% plus here in the U.S. and especially the 99% in the South that take Revelation on it's every word....
Quote:3. Are you reffering to the historical texts of the Vedic religion, talking about Ahisma, dated to 8th century BCE? I know of no earlier references. If you have some please site references. I don't believe their phraseology(?) is the same so if you can site references of someone earlier stating to "turn the other cheek" again please cite.
Confucius and Buddha both made comments of turning your aggression away 1st when confronted with an opposing matter... It may not have stated the "Exact wording" of turning the cheek, but the meaning was what I was referring to....
1. Timothy is about being in slavery and how to treat your unbelieving masters. That is not a condoning of slavery, jsut an acceptance that it was the then state of things.
2. In Ephesians perhaps too much focus is being given to "like slaves of christ" (which is a comparison) and states how you should act if you are a slave or a master.
I agree that Jesus never preached against slavery. I think slavery has a heavy connotation in america of physical subjugation and enslavement. While he does use parables, examples and similarities with (then) current themes. Slavery, I'm sure was seen in an entirely different light then than today. Reffering to Christians as slaves of God is, by the strictest definition of mental attributes, is more or less a better word without the misunderstood connotation would be follower. We all lead and follow at different times and homing in that Christians follow God is only one aspect on their beliefs. It would be like me saying all atheists are slaves to tangible reality. I think focusing on slavery in the teachings of Jesus is bickering over a perspective in history we have no reference for. IMO He's not saying be a good slave and master. He's saying if you are a slave/master be a good one because we're all accountable to God. Arguing that Jesus didn't preach against slavery means he condoned it has got to be some kind of fallacy, but I'm not farmiliar with the constructs of those. Help on fallacies any1?
3. "But tell that to the 45% plus here in the U.S. and especially the 99% in the South that take Revelation on it's every word" .. I do every chance I get. Luckily I have the chance to teach children about Jesus and God.
4. I was arguing semantics and apologize. Jesus wasn't the first, nor the last to have that philosophy. But here's a question if you believe that Confucius and Buddha, existed why not Jesus? Is it because of his claims that he is God incarnate? Why not just believe that he's another delusional preacher then? (Not you specifically .. just some people in general)
