Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

[Bob Gray]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Great. So let's discuss these verses which condone slavery, and in some cases explicitly direct the Jewish people to take slaves:

Genesis 17:12
Exodus 12:43
Exodus 21:1-32
Leviticus 22:10
Leviticus 25:44-46
Luke 7:2 (in which Jesus heals a slave's physical malady, but manages to neglect to tell the owner to free the slave)
Colossians 3:22
Ephesians 6:5
Titus 2:9
1 Timothy 6:1-2

There are plenty of proscriptions in those areas of the Bible (don't do this, don't do that), and several instructions on how NOT to treat slaves, but not once does God bother to say, "oh, yeah, um... maybe just don't own slaves in the first place." Clearly, eating of shellfish was a much greater concern for this Deity.

Either the Biblical writings were simply man-created products of the culture of their times (when slavery was perfectly acceptable), OR it was divinely inspired and true for all times and God is pretty ambivalent about slavery.

I don't believe folks like Paul, Peter, and Luke, who I reference, wrote those old testament books. And of course, there are all sorts of issues the Bible doesn't directly weigh in on, but that doesn't mean that it is being endorsed. But, of course slavery isn't what was being discussed, so nice detour.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I don't believe folks like Paul, Peter, and Luke, who I reference, wrote those old testament books. And of course, there are all sorts of issues the Bible doesn't directly weigh in on, but that doesn't mean that it is being endorsed. But, of course slavery isn't what was being discussed, so nice detour.

Ahhh - so you have a DIFFERENT standard for which parts of the Bible are legitimate. Unfortunately for you, 5 of the 10 passages I posted meet your standard!

Luke 7:2 (in which Jesus heals a slave's physical malady, but manages to neglect to tell the owner to free the slave)
Colossians 3:22
Ephesians 6:5
Titus 2:9
1 Timothy 6:1-2

Shall we count how many posts in this thread mention slavery to determine if that's "what was being discussed?"

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Ahhh - so you have a DIFFERENT standard for which parts of the Bible are legitimate. Unfortunately for you, 5 of the 10 passages I posted meet your standard!

Luke 7:2 (in which Jesus heals a slave's physical malady, but manages to neglect to tell the owner to free the slave)
Colossians 3:22
Ephesians 6:5
Titus 2:9
1 Timothy 6:1-2

Shall we count how many posts in this thread mention slavery to determine if that's "what was being discussed?"

I hadn't said a word about slavery. You're free to pursue those who are discussing that subject. My comments stand.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Then Christians should never cite Leviticus or any other Old Testament regulations. Gays are in the clear unless Jesus himself said no (and... never married, no known girlfriends, hung out with 12 guys...)

No, cause Paul still said it even if Jesus didn't.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I hadn't said a word about slavery. You're free to pursue those who are discussing that subject. My comments stand.

Ah, there's the Bob we know and love. Content to nip and yip at the edges of the fight, but when the attention turns to you, you deny that you were participating and run away with your tail between your legs.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

No, cause Paul still said it even if Jesus didn't.

That's fair if what we're saying is that the OT is no longer binding. The NT is all binding.

Anyway, this was all a thought experiment in response to this summary:

As I understand this is the basis of Christianity. Jesus fulfilled the law (the old testament) so completely and perfectly as a favor for mankind that it enabled anyone who wants to hitch a ride with him to disregard the requirements of the old testament. The old testament was completely and utterly trumped and made without effect by the Son of God. Otherwise we'd have to avoid shellfish or whatever to be acceptable to God.

Whereas if you're Jewish, Jesus wasn't the true Messiah and therefore the old requirements still apply.

My understanding is that it was important to jettison the rules and rituals in order to allow Christianity to be acceptable to non-Jews. The feature was that now anybody could be saved by accepting Jesus -- there was no longer a "chosen" geographical group. The bug was now anybody could be saved by accepting Jesus, so a timebomb was created where Christians could justify overrunning the planet and destroying every other culture they came into contact all in the name of holy conversion and salvation. The timebomb went off when western technological progress gave them frigates to sink everybody's else's canoes.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Ah, there's the Bob we know and love. Content to nip and yip at the edges of the fight, but when the attention turns to you, you deny that you were participating and run away with your tail between your legs.

I've learned not to let people like you dictate to me what I discuss or don't discuss. You can go discuss your slavery issue with whoever you want, just don't demand that I join you.

 

[unofan]

I've learned not to let people like you dictate to me what I discuss or don't discuss. You can go discuss your slavery issue with whoever you want, just don't demand that I join you.

And here comes Bob the Martyr that we all know and love.

 

[joecct]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

That's fair if what we're saying is that the OT is no longer binding. The NT is all binding.

Anyway, this was all a thought experiment in response to this summary:



My understanding is that it was important to jettison the rules and rituals in order to allow Christianity to be acceptable to non-Jews. The feature was that now anybody could be saved by accepting Jesus -- there was no longer a "chosen" geographical group. The bug was now anybody could be saved by accepting Jesus, so a timebomb was created where Christians could justify overrunning the planet and destroying every other culture they came into contact all in the name of holy conversion and salvation. The timebomb went off when western technological progress gave them frigates to sink everybody's else's canoes.

Don't you think the sanctioning of Christianity by the State (Edit of Milan?) had a lot to do with it?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Don't you think the sanctioning of Christianity by the State (Edit of Milan?) had a lot to do with it?

I just don't know enough to have a well-founded answer. According to this, the relief from Mosaic Law comes as early as 50 AD in the Council of Jerusalem, and its purpose/significance is to break down entry barriers for Hellenists. That is also the history Hecht accepts.

Here's a really interesting discussion of the relationship between the OT, Jesus, the New Covenant, and what trumps what and how. The history of the development of related concepts make me wish theology was still a required (the only way I would have taken it at the time) course in college. They make me feel completely Biblically illiterate, which is a terrible flaw if you're interested in the history of western philosophy. A curtain has been drawn over almost everyone's ability to step into a genuine historical mindset, since we no longer have Latin or Greek or anything but an antiquarian interest in what were once vital Biblical scholarship debates.

But we no longer treat women like incubators, sex like perversion, or non-Christians like insects, either, so there are compensations.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

That's fair if what we're saying is that the OT is no longer binding. The NT is all binding.

The two testaments are a convenient classification (I don't believe ordained by God) and not what really matters from a prioritization standpoint. Its Jesus (being God) and his references that are 'all binding'...the rest sets the context. Its quite simple really...either the Bible has a book or it doesn't. So would it be more instructive to just have the Jesus story without the context (the OT and parts of the new) or include the context as well.

So as is not ideal...the appearance is that all parts of the Bible are on equal footing which has likely been a big factor leading to misunderstandings that have been discussed earlier in the thread.

My understanding is that it was important to jettison the rules and rituals in order to allow Christianity to be acceptable to non-Jews. The feature was that now anybody could be saved by accepting Jesus -- there was no longer a "chosen" geographical group. The bug was now anybody could be saved by accepting Jesus, so a timebomb was created where Christians could justify overrunning the planet and destroying every other culture they came into contact all in the name of holy conversion and salvation. The timebomb went off when western technological progress gave them frigates to sink everybody's else's canoes.

Is all this ritual adjustment necessary in the Bible and teachings today? I think not. But it was a critical stepping stone to getting it into the west and ultimately for the great influence Christ was to have in modern society as discussed. So Paul played his (one could say divinely inspired) critical role as a stepping stone...with some of the implications that today there are complications by placing his words next to the Word of Jesus.

Am jammed this weekend and plan to check out other posts...just thought this was interesting to jump on.

 

[burd]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

The two testaments are a convenient classification (I don't believe ordained by God) and not what really matters from a prioritization standpoint. Its Jesus (being God) and his references that are 'all binding'...the rest sets the context. Its quite simple really...either the Bible has a book or it doesn't. So would it be more instructive to just have the Jesus story without the context (the OT and parts of the new) or include the context as well.

So as is not ideal...the appearance is that all parts of the Bible are on equal footing which has likely been a big factor leading to misunderstandings that have been discussed earlier in the thread.



Is all this ritual adjustment necessary in the Bible and teachings today? I think not. But it was a critical stepping stone to getting it into the west and ultimately for the great influence Christ was to have in modern society as discussed. So Paul played his (one could say divinely inspired) critical role as a stepping stone...with some of the implications that today there are complications by placing his words next to the Word of Jesus.

Am jammed this weekend and plan to check out other posts...just thought this was interesting to jump on.

I'm far from knowledgeable about the bible, but what "Word of Jesus" is not at least double hearsay translated at least twice from a language 99% of us cannot understand?

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

99%. You're so kind.

 

[joecct]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I'm far from knowledgeable about the bible, but what "Word of Jesus" is not at least double hearsay translated at least twice from a language 99% of us cannot understand?

Now, but back in the day, Greek (heck, most of Napolean's staff knew Greek, that's how the Rosetta Stone unlocked the secrets of Egyptian) was popular as was Latin. Hebrew/Aramaic, dunno.

Personally, I like the language flow of the King James and Douay translations.

 

[burd]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Now, but back in the day, Greek (heck, most of Napolean's staff knew Greek, that's how the Rosetta Stone unlocked the secrets of Egyptian) was popular as was Latin. Hebrew/Aramaic, dunno.

Personally, I like the language flow of the King James and Douay translations.

But you have no earthly idea how true either of those two translations is to the nuances or even the precise meanings of Aramaic or ancient Greek, I suspect. I might say that I enjoyed Fathers and Sons, but I have never actually read Turgenev.

 

[unofan]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

So as is not ideal...the appearance is that all parts of the Bible are on equal footing which has likely been a big factor leading to misunderstandings that have been discussed earlier in the thread.

Again, depending on your particular variety of Christianity, all parts of the Bible are on equal footing. Numerous denominations say that the entire Bible is God's word and is not merely describing the setting or background information. Catholicism even goes so far as to include extra books in its version of the Bible; clearly they must believe those books are meaningful.

Maybe you are a part of the "correct" version of Christianity, but for you to say that others are not true Christians because they don't believe in your Biblical interpretation and all of the assumptions/consequences that go along with that interpretation is simply mindboggling.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

Again, depending on your particular variety of Christianity, all parts of the Bible are on equal footing. Numerous denominations say that the entire Bible is God's word and is not merely describing the setting or background information. Catholicism even goes so far as to include extra books in its version of the Bible; clearly they must believe those books are meaningful.

Maybe you are a part of the "correct" version of Christianity, but for you to say that others are not true Christians because they don't believe in your Biblical interpretation and all of the assumptions/consequences that go along with that interpretation is simply mindboggling.

There is one thing that has formed the foundation of Christianity through the centuries: Christ...which mirrors probably the most scrutinized definition in the history of religion, wiki says this:

Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.

Many have additional beliefs and practice their faith in numerous ways. Its all good. At end of the day though, its not Christian-like to behave quite contrary to Christ.

I'm far from knowledgeable about the bible, but what "Word of Jesus" is not at least double hearsay translated at least twice from a language 99% of us cannot understand?

I could get into a big discussion about how the subsequent 50 years unfolded, but no need to create rocket science out of this. Suffice it to say Jesus' existence and major messages have been accepted by pretty much all theologians and historians alike. And its our lucky day, major messages are what matter here.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

There is one thing that has formed the foundation of Christianity through the centuries: Christ...which mirrors probably the most scrutinized definition in the history of religion, wiki says this:

Christianity is a monotheistic religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus as presented in the New Testament.

Many have additional beliefs and practice their faith in numerous ways. Its all good. At end of the day though, its not Christian-like to behave quite contrary to Christ.



I could get into a big discussion about how the subsequent 50 years unfolded, but no need to create rocket science out of this. Suffice it to say Jesus' existence and major messages have been accepted by pretty much all theologians and historians alike. And its our lucky day, major messages are what matter here.

Really? Per Wiki, "the only two events subject to 'almost universal assent' are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."

 

[Priceless]

Really? Per Wiki, "the only two events subject to 'almost universal assent' are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."

This is a discussion of religion. Don't be bringing facts into this.

 

[burd]

Re: Your Political Stance - 2014 Edition

I could get into a big discussion about how the subsequent 50 years unfolded, but no need to create rocket science out of this. Suffice it to say Jesus' existence and major messages have been accepted by pretty much all theologians and historians alike. And its our lucky day, major messages are what matter here.

No rocket science indeed.