|
|
Post by RS Davis on Feb 9, 2004 1:50:56 GMT -5
I just had a really fun day arguing homosexuality and the bible with a guy on another forum. I am going to recreate it here in this thread, because I don't want to lose it. ;D
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by bvd on Feb 9, 2004 1:52:50 GMT -5
You know what I have noticed, anecdotally? "Christians" who are pro gay agenda also seem to be pro choice on abortion, anti capital punishment, tree hugging, save the whale types. Wonder why that is. Why would Christians be FOR a Biblical abomination, murdering the unborn, and NOT punishing convicted murderous felons, but are willing to risk a lot to save trees, and whales. Seems rather strange view.
|
|
|
|
Post by RSDavis on Feb 9, 2004 1:54:29 GMT -5
Okay, I am a pro-gay marriage Christian. I am against the death penalty. I am against abortion, and for the right to choose. I am not a tree hugger, and I have nothing for nor against whales.
But since you brought it up, let me ask you your opinion of Leviticus 25:
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.
For centuries, people quoted very explicit Biblical endorsements of Slavery. They would ask how "Christians" could condemn slavery when their Lord God clearly condoned and encouraged the practice.
In his 1788 pamphlet, Scriptural Researches on the Licitness of the Slave-Trade, Raymond Harris wrote, "The Oracular Decisions of God have positively declared that the Slave-Trade is intrinsically good and licit, [and that the holding of slaves] is perfectly consonant to the principles of the Law of Nature, the Mosaic Dispensation, and the Christian Law." Therefore, he surmised, slavery has "the positive sanction of God in its support."
I can't see that you would support slavery, even when the Bible so clearly endorses it, so I have to surmise that even though you may think you are following the commandments of God in the Bible strictly, you are still processing the information through your own preferences, and not an objective analysis of the Bible.
In fact, were you to be really true to the Bible, you would advocate stoning as an appropriate government response to a homosexual. As you don't, one must assume there is at least some breathing room between what you advocate and what the Bible tells you you must advocate. What is your method for discerning what is "really important" from what is "able to be overlooked?"
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by bvd on Feb 9, 2004 2:01:46 GMT -5
I am again amazed to hear people claim to be Christians who are pro gay, and anti capital punishment. But as I stated, it was an anecdotal observation. Exceptions abound, yourself included.
Well, the issue was directed to the Jews and for their subjugation of the nations surrounding them. We are neither Jews, nor in Israel. Since then the Jews, fell from favor in the eyes of God, and through them the salvation was spread to the gentiles. Context was an issue, and IMHO, the point that ONLY nations surrounding them, were allowed, is the devil in the details on that passage on its applicability to today.
Well, that "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" event kinda did away with stoning. IMHO
|
|
|
|
Post by RSDavis on Feb 9, 2004 2:03:53 GMT -5
What was it about the nations surrounding Israel that made it okay to enslave them, and what is it current people have that changes that? Would an Isreali today be right with God if he enslaved his neighbors?
- Rick
|
|
|
|
Post by bvd on Feb 9, 2004 2:07:26 GMT -5
What was it about the nations surrounding Israel that made it okay to enslave them, and what is it current people have that changes that? Would an Isreali today be right with God if he enslaved his neighbors? - Rick Things had dramatically changed regarding Israel and their Exodus from Egypt to the promised land. The discussion on their taking slaves of those people they had conquered from neighboring lands, pretty much was not discussed elsewhere, so it would be rather safe to say, that this concept pretty much faded out in time. IMHO, not much different than many of the Levitical dietary restraints going away in the NT. |
|
|
|
Post by RSDavis on Feb 9, 2004 2:10:25 GMT -5
Things had dramatically changed regarding Israel and their Exodus from Egypt to the promised land. The discussion on their taking slaves of those people they had conquered from neighboring lands, pretty much was not discussed elsewhere, so it would be rather safe to say, that this concept pretty much faded out in time. IMHO, not much different than many of the Levitical dietary restraints going away in the NT. You think God condoning and advocating the enslavement of human beings can be compared to God saying to not eat pork? We've found safer ways to consume pork since Leviticus - what has changed about people that they no longer should be enslaved by other people, and what was it that made it okay to enslave them in the first place? - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by bvd on Feb 9, 2004 2:11:26 GMT -5
You think God condoning and advocating the enslavement of human beings can be compared to God saying to not eat pork? We've found safer ways to consume pork since Leviticus - what has changed about people that they no longer should be enslaved by other people, and what was it that made it okay to enslave them in the first place? - Rick the pork thing changed with Christ, so that point is moot. If a Jew, and living in the OT times, you kind of saw the miracles God did, exodus, etc. So when the big guy says it is OK to enslave your neighbors, and if you are jewish, and you live in that time and that location, it seems God felt it OK. My gut is you are not Jewish, not living in Israel, and the jews had since been dispersed after the fall of Jeruselum 70 AD or so. That pretty much answers that question. |
|
|
|
Post by RSDavis on Feb 9, 2004 2:13:09 GMT -5
the pork thing changed with Christ, so that point is moot. If a Jew, and living in the OT times, you kind of saw the miracles God did, exodus, etc. So when the big guy says it is OK to enslave your neighbors, and if you are jewish, and you live in that time and that location, it seems God felt it OK. My gut is you are not Jewish, not living in Israel, and the jews had since been dispersed after the fall of Jeruselum 70 AD or so. That pretty much answers that question. Not even remotely.So, because I am not a Jew living before Christ, it is not right for me to enslave another human being? What was it about Jews before Christ that made them better than other people, that God would condone them taking away that which God gave everyone in his own image - free will? - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by bvd on Feb 9, 2004 2:13:58 GMT -5
Not even remotely.So, because I am not a Jew living before Christ, it is not right for me to enslave another human being? What was it about Jews before Christ that made them better than other people, that God would condone them taking away that which God gave everyone in his own image - free will? - Rick They were God's chosen people. Remember, exodus and that 76 plagues adventure for pharoah? After Christ, the blessing passed to the gentiles for the Jews rejected him as messiah. Those who were made slaves were the sinful nations God had destined for destruction at the hands of the Jews when they moved back to Israel from Egypt. These other people had rejected God and embraced false gods and prayed to idols and were steeped in sinful behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by RSDavis on Feb 9, 2004 2:16:01 GMT -5
They were God's chosen people. Remember, exodus and that 76 plagues adventure for pharoah? After Christ, the blessing passed to the gentiles for the Jews rejected him as messiah. Those who were made slaves were the sinful nations God had destined for destruction at the hands of the Jews when they moved back to Israel from Egypt. These other people had rejected God and embraced false gods and prayed to idols and were steeped in sinful behavior. So, then Isrealis now could rightly enslave heathens, right? And what other sins could the Jewish people commit against those substandard humans in the Middle East with God's blessing? - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by bvd on Feb 9, 2004 2:17:01 GMT -5
So, then Isrealis now could rightly enslave heathens, right? And what other sins could the Jewish people commit against those substandard humans in the Middle East with God's blessing? - Rick OK, for the third time, the Jews lost their favored race status when they rejected Christ as messiah, and this passed on to the Gentiles. So I would surmise, that since the Jewish nation was pretty much destroyed after Christ, and really was never brought back together, in the same fashion, with God talking directly to them, and performing major miracles, and the temple with levitical preists, etc., IMHO, this concept was dropped for the Jews. |
|
|
|
Post by RSDavis on Feb 9, 2004 2:18:03 GMT -5
OK, for the third time, the Jews lost their favored race status when they rejected Christ as messiah, and this passed on to the Gentiles. So I would surmise, that since the Jewish nation was pretty much destroyed after Christ, and really was never brought back together, in the same fashion, with God talking directly to them, and performing major miracles, and the temple with levitical preists, etc., IMHO, this concept was dropped for the Jews. Oh, I didn't catch that. So, now the gentiles can enslave people, rather than the Jews? I have a hard time keeping track of who God gives favored and substandard status to. - Rick |
|
|
|
Post by bvd on Feb 9, 2004 2:18:54 GMT -5
Oh, I didn't catch that. So, now the gentiles can enslave people, rather than the Jews? I have a hard time keeping track of who God gives favored and substandard status to. - Rick Really, I implied that? Where? Funny I don't seem to remember mentioning the word slaves and gentiles in the same sentence and context that they could embrace slavery under commandment of God. Where did you grasp that nugget of knowledge? |
|
|
|
Post by RSDavis on Feb 9, 2004 2:19:29 GMT -5
Really, I implied that? Where? Funny I don't seem to remember mentioning the word slaves and gentiles in the same sentence and context that they could embrace slavery under commandment of God. Where did you grasp that nugget of knowledge? Through logic. You said that the Jews before Jesus could enslave people because of the virtue of God liking them better than everyone else. Then, you said that that honor passed to the gentiles when the Jews killed Jesus. One would assume that favored status in the eyes of the big guy would carry all the rights and priveledges - like the ability to enslave lesser races - with it. - Rick |
|
