For Those Who Don't Believe....in Religion

[jmccr8]

6 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The teachings of Christ are simply incompatible with slavery.

''In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.''

- Matthew 7:12

 

"Let me give you a new command: Love one another. In the same way I loved you, you love one another"

-John 13:34

 

Even Paul wrote:

"Faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman"

-Galatians 3:28

 

 

Hi Clockwork

I don't recall Jesus ever freeing any slaves nor rebuking slave owners so I am not sure where you see what you are asserting. Your last reference to Paul is what Paul is known to have written and only speaks from the sense that god may see you as equally. There is nothing there that speaks out against slavery.

jmccr8

[WoIverine]

On 1/23/2018 at 9:08 PM, Guyver said:

What do you believe if anything?

Do you believe in the existence of soul or spirit?  Do you have a problem with those who do believe?  So you believe in spirituality?  

Are there people out there who don't believe in religion but do believe in God?

Hey Guyver, thank you for the thread. I used to view Christianity as a religion, but I was never successful with it, it was just too hard to follow. It seemed like it was almost impossible to hold to even the ten commandments themselves, and I struggled. I gave up. Eventually, I began to realize that my view was twisted. I had knowledge, with zero application, I was a hypocrite.

I always used to hear about people traveling to Israel to walk where Jesus walked, but I realized it's much more important to walk how He walked. I'm learning to love others, like He commanded, and it's changing everything. I'm letting go of the religion...and I'm embracing my relationship with Him.

Edited March 14, 2018 by WoIverine

[psyche101]

15 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The teachings of Christ are simply incompatible with slavery.

''In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.''

- Matthew 7:12

 

"Let me give you a new command: Love one another. In the same way I loved you, you love one another"

-John 13:34

 

Even Paul wrote:

"Faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman"

-Galatians 3:28

 

 

If so why does the new testament and the Jesus character condone slavery? 

 

Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): ⁵Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ

1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): ¹All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. ²Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles

Colossians 4:1 (NASB) ¹Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven

Matthew 18:25

But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

Slaves van even be killed, which does not sound very loving to me. 

Matthew 24:51

And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

 

So no, they condone slavery. So much for an all knowing moral Higher being. 

You don't seem to know the bible as well as even the atheists here. Yet claim to understand it. You have no credibility. 

[Only_]

14 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Clockwork

I don't recall Jesus ever freeing any slaves nor rebuking slave owners so I am not sure where you see what you are asserting.

According to the NT, Jesus healed people with leprosy and didn't mind being around them. He eated with tax collectors and sinners. He met with a samaritan women at the wells (samaritans were actually seen as a worst kind than slaves by the Jews). All of this was considered unthinkable in his time. He made very clear statements. Jesus stood up for the outcasts and all those considered 'impure' by his contemporaries.

''But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.''

-Matthew 19:30

Edited March 15, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[Only_]

6 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If so why does the new testament and the Jesus character condone slavery? 

 

Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): ⁵Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ

1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): ¹All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. ²Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles

Colossians 4:1 (NASB) ¹Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven

Matthew 18:25

But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

Slaves van even be killed, which does not sound very loving to me. 

Matthew 24:51

And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

 

 

So no, they condone slavery. So much for an all knowing moral Higher being. 

You don't seem to know the bible as well as even the atheists here. Yet claim to understand it. You have no credibility. 

[LINK] Why Is the New Testament Silent on Slavery — or Is It?

Quoting the NT out of context isn't the way to go if you want an accurate picture of what Christ and his followers really thought.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[jmccr8]

33 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

According to the NT, Jesus healed people with leprosy and didn't mind being around them. He eated with tax collectors and sinners. He met with a samaritan women at the wells (samaritans were actually seen as a worst kind than slaves by the Jews). All of this was considered unthinkable in his time. He made very clear statements. Jesus stood up for the outcasts and all those considered 'impure' by his contemporaries.

''But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.''

-Matthew 19:30

Hi Clockwork

Yes he did and that's fine but he did not free people from slavery nor did he rebuke slave owners or insight rebellion against slavery. There have been many Christian slave owners for many centuries after him. How many Christians do you think would take up with the people you mentioned for the same reason or compassion? Not many I know I've been in the trenches and most of the one's I've seen in there would be going to confession asking for forgiveness because they were there partaking not saving.

There are lots of"enlightened" people that make their living providing vices for failure and tell you that those fallen were weak while they took their money.

jmccr8

[psyche101]

10 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

[LINK] Why Is the New Testament Silent on Slavery — or Is It?

Quoting the NT out of context isn't the way to go if you want an accurate picture of what Christ and his followers really thought.

That's not out of context and your link does not show that is the case either. Did you read it? 

It attempts to soften the blow by stating that slave masters are to treat slaves with some dignity  but says nothing about disobedient slaves who may be punished or even killed in the new testament. 

Do you know this book you push at all? Where are your views, why have you no way to answer for yourself but must refer to others or post dust jackets of books you have not read but like the controversial titles of? 

[Jodie.Lynne]

26 minutes ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

[LINK] Why Is the New Testament Silent on Slavery — or Is It?

Quoting the NT out of context isn't the way to go if you want an accurate picture of what Christ and his followers really thought.

You are aware that Jesus is claimed to have said:

Matthew 5:17-18 ¹⁷"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ¹⁸For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

 

Sooooo, if slavery was A-OK in the OT, then it was still a-OK in the NT.

And just for the record, I'm still confused how someone can "fufilll" the law, when the law was a series of rules to follow. 

[WoIverine]

613 + 10 laws, extremely difficult to walk out. That was the first covenant, through Moses, specifically for Israel. Christ represents the second covenant for all mankind. When He said, "I came to fulfill the law", I always thought that was interesting. If anyone could dot every biblical I, and cross every biblical T, it'd definitely be Him.

[Only_]

54 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Do you know this book you push at all? Where are your views, why have you no way to answer for yourself but must refer to others or post dust jackets of books you have not read but like the controversial titles of? 

It's important to back up claims with sources and references. Your personal opinion is interesting but nothing more than that if you do not have anything to support it other than your own written words. I provide books, links, data from various scientists and researchers to support mine.

Edited March 15, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

It's important to back up claims with sources and references. Your personal opinion is interesting but nothing more than that if you do not have anything to support it other than your own written words. I provide books, links, data from various scientists and researchers to support mine.

I don't find your personal take of religion interesting, it's a horrid mess of your opinion and bastardised versions of the new testament. I honestly believe you damage the reputation of that which you love with your approach to it and how your proselytise your world view. You seem to have overstepped what you consider the creator for one of his creations, which seem credulous at best. 

No you have never supported a single view you have expressed in any discussion. I'm not sure why you think posting dust jackets is a rebuttal, it's not. It's lazy and says nothing. You seem to have the process completely back to front. If you are debating a view, your supposed to give your thoughts, state how they apply to the discussion and THEN post the book as a reference with the page number referring to the aspect your offering as your evidence. 

The links are the same, you need to quote the relevant part THEN offer the link. 

Rarely do your links actually pertain to the discussion. You post provocative titles to articles and paperbacks, but the titles don't aways reflect the content, which you seem to be completely oblivious to and when it's pointed out to you, you go quiet on your stuff up and post another title. 

I would be surprised if you had actually read more than 5% of the links and dust jackets you post. 

You posted Jonathan Wells as an example of science working with religion when I first started to debate you here, in the last 12 months or so  your evidence has not improved from that very poor early effort that you obviously did not research. 

No, sorry but you don't support your posts at all. You may think that's what you do but you don't. Providing links without any of your own input, and posting dust jackets is just lazy and doesn't tell anyone anything. If you think you are getting people to read these books for you or pushing people to read them and come to the same conclusion you have then you are seriously kidding yourself. I honestly think that views such as your are only damaging to a religious outlook ad any rational person could not consider your contradictions and twisted view of religion as anything but very personal to yourself. I know I don't want what your selling, nor do the posters I see as intelligent, and the only people supporting your view are either offer other personal views just ad unfounded as your views or more so. 

I've recommended posters here who are good ambassadors for religion, it's a crying shame you never bothered to learn from them. 

Yes it's important to back up your claims, but that's not what you do. 

Edited March 15, 2018 by psyche101

[Rlyeh]

2 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

[LINK] Why Is the New Testament Silent on Slavery — or Is It?

Quoting the NT out of context isn't the way to go if you want an accurate picture of what Christ and his followers really thought.

So the message is owning and selling someone is perfectly fine but you should be nice to them? 

[Will Due]

 

I think in the last week or so in these kindred discussions it's become well established that religious ideas about God evolve. They change, sometimes merge and grow, generally from the primitive to the more advanced, but not always. 

Two thousand years ago it culminated in the appearance on the world's religious scene in the person of Jesus. The OT pointed to his coming but the less spiritual ideas about his mission eventually came to dominate the religious thinking of many during his sojourn which overshadowed his spiritual teachings to the point that he was rejected and killed by the Jewish leaders.

But Jesus and his teachings where embraced by others, and they will eventually triumph and dispell all religious confusion. It cannot be stopped. This will take time and we are in the midst of this evolution now.

For me this is all true because I've learned that Jesus is much more than a man. He is in fact the Creator himself and the ruler of our universe who came to live among us. Our world is very honored to have been chosen to host his nativity and I am dedicated to following him, wrinkles, bumps, disappointments in myself and all.

I've learned that the knowledge of how Jesus lived his religious life is the key. He is God you know, and the knowledge of his life is available for everyone. But it does take a discerning and humble approach to living to find it, not to mention, apply it. And you have to look everywhere. 

 

 

Edited March 15, 2018 by Will Due

[SHaYap]

~

Stanislav Traykov - Edited version of (cloned object out of background) Image:Michelangelo's Pieta 5450 cropncleaned.jpg)

Michelangelo's Pietà in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican.

~

• Wiki link

~

Mommy loves you ...

~

 

[Omnaka]

On 3/13/2018 at 10:31 PM, psyche101 said:

No, death is final. I don't know why people insist otherwise when everything we know points at this conclusion. Only man made myths speak of an afterlife. 

I share from experience. Ive been to the other side and back. Its understandable if you do not believe me.

Maybe check out the hundreds of thousands of NDEs that have been written about.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Omnaka said:

I share from experience. Ive been to the other side and back. Its understandable if you do not believe me.

I don't doubt that you've had an experience that has inspired you to believe old myths that are an easy fit to your experiences. I'm sure you believe what you say, I just think it's an entirely personal conclusion and doesn't apply to everything going on around us. 

1 hour ago, Omnaka said:

Maybe check out the hundreds of thousands of NDEs that have been written about.

Again, better explanations exist than an easy fit from an old myth, we know how the brain works and its proven everyday that we are only getting better at understanding it. I don't find comfort in what I see as false hope. If it works for you that's great, but it just doesn't have applications beyond that. 

[Only_]

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

 

Again, better explanations exist than an easy fit from an old myth, we know how the brain works and its proven everyday that we are only getting better at understanding it. I don't find comfort in what I see as false hope. If it works for you that's great, but it just doesn't have applications beyond that. 

''Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.''

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

Would you agree with that definition?

Edited March 20, 2018 by Clockwork_Spirit

[eight bits]

Clockwork

Quote

Would you agree with that definition?

Definition? Rant, so far as I can see. But let's take a look anyway:

Quote

... in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism ...

Oh, oh. Weasel word ("much") + unfounded moral equalivalence claim ("the same way").  What does that tell us about the rant?

That the entire concept is a psychological projection. Unable to accept defeat in the open competition of ideas, the ego-defending pushers of the wooly invent some invisible, anonymous personal agents (the adherents of scientism, not to be confused with scientists, lol) who have humiliated them. These imaginary invisible beings are as irrationally closed-minded as the wooliest of the wooly, the dreaded Fundie.

In other words, the "definition" is overwritten with the signature of psychological projection: the baddies are just like the person speaking. Ayuh. Heard that one before.

In actual fact? The woolies have problems with all sorts of scholars, not just scientists. Historians, for example, have done as much to make Fundamentalism a laughingstock as scientists (= real-life scholars of natural science, not the phantams of projection).

It would seem, then, that the actual agents of wooly defeat are any people who apply reason to what they perceive in the world. A lot of those people do go into the natural sciences, or fields where natural science is applied (e.g. medicine, engineering). But everybody who combines careful perception and sober reason poses a threat to wooliness. Las Vegas stage magicians have racked up big wins.

It's not people, Clockwork. It's better ideas displacing not-so-good ideas.

-

@Clockwork_Spirit

[m1ssKarma]

Remember that line of Riddick between him and the preacher?

Riddick: Think someone could spend half their life in a slam with a horse bit in their mouth and not believe? Think he could start out in some liquor store trash bin with an umbilical cord wrapped around his neck and not believe? Got it all wrong, holy man. I absolutely believe in God... And I absolutely hate the ******.

Juust about sums it up

[m1ssKarma]

To explain myself a little more 'politely', I was once a devout Christian, you know the ones..  'would you like a Watchtower'. Eugh.

I went through proverbial hell in the last few years and contacted one 'friend' I used to have, more of a family 'acquaintance', and asked for his help as i had no where to turn - I was basically homeless, but that's another story. He basically turned around and said 'where have you been, haven't seen you at meetings (something like that)'. I said I needed somewhere to stay until i got a place, did he know anyone who would help. He just said none of them were around at the moment...

I even went to one of their meetings to ask them in person if they could put me up on a sofa for a bit, that i'd even pay for food. (even the church they hate gave me free sandwiches and coffee etc, just shows the hypocrisy) . I told the 'friends' this, they scoffed and accused me of abusing the congregation.

I promptly left, and that was the end of my relationship with organised religion. Then i realized who 'taught' them to behave like that. Me and 'god' are done. Jesus doesn't really offend me, he was just following orders.

Now I am studying magic and meditation, for relaxation, more than having to 'obey' some 'teacher' every week.

My beliefs are complicated from my experiences, but I feel more 'complete' now, as if I've found an un-conflicting faith or path if you will, without the Christian 2-facedness. Honestly sometimes I think if Jesus were on earth he'd be ashamed of the thousands of arguing sects.. every one of them thinks they are 'the bomb' and the only way upstairs..what if they're all wrong? they could be all right, and all going up there. Oh the ranting could go on forever. That's why I'm out.

[psyche101]

On 3/20/2018 at 2:09 PM, Brother_Spirit said:

''Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.''

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html

Would you agree with that definition?

No, its just paranoia. Science doesn't have particular goals, it doesn't attempt to 'do away' with the metaphysical, or religious claims. It superseded them naturally. It's is the only justifiable way to the truth, simply because science demands repeatability, perdictability and rely on observation. Its not a 'thing' its a description of 'what is' making up stuff beyond that, like God, is just slowing and convoluting that process and is completely pointless. It's just a hindrance. 

[Farmer77]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 10:08 PM, Guyver said:

What do you believe if anything?

Do you believe in the existence of soul or spirit?  Do you have a problem with those who do believe?  So you believe in spirituality?  

Are there people out there who don't believe in religion but do believe in God?

As a former fundamentalist Christian I have come to believe that there is a higher power within all of us on a molecular level. We all come from the same pool of energy and we will all return to the same pool to be used again in one form or another. 

 

[Farmer77]

On ‎3‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 12:07 AM, Brother_Spirit said:

According to the NT, Jesus healed people with leprosy and didn't mind being around them. He eated with tax collectors and sinners. He met with a samaritan women at the wells (samaritans were actually seen as a worst kind than slaves by the Jews). All of this was considered unthinkable in his time. He made very clear statements. Jesus stood up for the outcasts and all those considered 'impure' by his contemporaries.

''But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.''

-Matthew 19:30

Yes that is a wonderful way to keep the oppressed from becoming violent and rising up. 

What it isn't however is a rebuke of slavery. 

[Skulduggery]

I believe in something more meaningful than myself and greater than any god. I believe in something cosmic and all-encompassing. I believe in consciousness being an aspect of the soul and that it can exist in multiple states like water, ice, vapor, etc.

[Mr Walker]

On 24/01/2018 at 2:04 PM, Scudbuster said:

Here's one reason....the bible is full of stuff like this, so its far from being that "good book" that I've heard pastors/minsters refer to it as:

 

To answer the last question on the poster.

it is easy.

morality is not fixed but changeable and socially driven.

Slavery was not always immoral or unethical and especially given the only realistic  alternatives available to people in those days This is pretty classic   safe western   modernist thinking That everyone inthe past should have lived by their ethics and moralities . 

I wonder how many people know that, until the mid 1960s there were only two countries in the world where a woman could legally refuse sex to her husband (and one was soviet russia)  Marriage, legally and socially, gave an ongoing and irrevocable consent to sex as a par t of the legal and social contract involved,  and so rape in marriage simply did not exist, either as an idea or as a legal entity Think how morality on this has changed in just  50 years and you might get the idea about how attitudes to slavery have changed  

second

Do you know any modern christian church which teaches that slavery  is acceptable?  Institutions change as society changes. It was the church of England, quakers and evangelical Christians  who were largely responsible for the abolition of slavery in the 1800s   

 

 

On 22 May 1787, twelve devout men assembled at a printing shop in the City of London. Most were Quakers, but they were joined by several Anglicans, including the veteran anti-slavery campaigner, Granville Sharp, and the young Thomas Clarkson, who would devote his entire life to the cause. The twelve established themselves as the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, and they recruited a young Yorkshire MP, William Wilberforce, to lead the campaign in the House of Commons. Charming, well connected, eloquent and Evangelical, Wilberforce proved an inspired choice. He and his closest allies were fired with godly zeal for a righteous cause, and buoyed by an enormous swell of support from across the British Isles. The cause was promoted in a flood of publications: sermons, pamphlets, treatises, poems, narratives, newspaper articles, reports and petitions.

Within twenty years of that seminal meeting in the printing shop, the slave trade had been abolished throughout the Empire. In 1833, after the greatest mass petitioning campaign in British history, Parliament abolished slavery itself in British dominions; five years later, in 1838, the slaves were finally emancipated. By the 1880s, slavery had been extinguished in the southern United States and across most of the earth. ‘From any historical perspective’, writes the pre-eminent historian of slavery, David Brion Davis, ‘this was a stupendous transformation’.[1]

http://www.jubilee-centre.org/the-abolition-of-the-slave-trade-christian-conscience-and-political-action-by-john-coffey/

Edited August 1, 2018 by Mr Walker