Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

The epistles give no indication that Christian masters should not turn their slaves free.

...and no instruction that slavery was morally wrong so they should set their slaves free.

There is certainly no injunction to have slaves.

...and no injunction not to.

So much for absolute morality.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is a JOKE!

It is not intended to be. I think you rather fancy that you'd have been some kind of heroic figure exhorting slaves to revolt but let's see what yer tribe the antichristians were actually up to around this time...........ah yes, throwing Christians to the lions and the gladiators.

I put it to you then Do you think it it right that Christians should undergo ordeal with possible death.....and if you do not isn't it possible that that is more due to Christian heritage rather than roman pagans and atheists.....such as they were?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...and no instruction that slavery was morally wrong so they should set their slaves free.

...and no injunction not to.

So much for absolute morality.     

Well that comes with later Christians of course.

So much for absolute morality? Don't you think the modern, Wilberforcian attitude to slavery is closer to the absolute morality concerning slavery?

[Stranger]

It is not intended to be. I think you rather fancy that you'd have been some kind of heroic figure exhorting slaves to revolt but let's see what yer tribe the antichristians were actually up to around this time...........ah yes, throwing Christians to the lions and the gladiators.

If there is absolute morality, then what we would have done and what other people were doing at the time is totally irrelevant. Why isn't slavery condemned as morally wrong throughout the bible?

For that matter why did god order genocide in the OT?

Either the bible is wrong or Christian absolute morality is wrong.

[BeRational]

Overall I disagree. There is no injunction in the NT to have slaves and epistle evidence is that at the time it was thought sensible and expedient  for the Christian personnel at the time to stay in position. Who is to argue with that?

The bible tells you who can enslave and for how long ,and that you can pass them on as property.

Also, you can kill them as long as they die  a few days later.

The bible condones slavery, that is a fact, and not open to question.

[floo]

The bible tells you who can enslave and for how long ,and that you can pass them on as property.

Also, you can kill them as long as they die  a few days later.

The bible condones slavery, that is a fact, and not open to question.

Agreed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I've already spelt that out. So as not to upset the main mission of spreading the gospel and living and demonstrating the new life in Christ.

Something that still leaves me bewildered is the suspension of an ordinary moral compass by those who at the same time think themselves to be morally good little Christians.

Slavery? All fine and dandy it seems provided it’s so as not to “upset the main mission of spreading the gospel and living and demonstrating the new life in Christ”. Perhaps this kind of contemptible post rationalising is what allows some to agree with disgusting apologists like William Lane Craig: “Dashing out the brains of babies on rocks? Not a problem – after all their parents disobeyed the word of God, and besides that way they got to heaven quicker!”

What morally filthy act couldn’t you justify if you’d convinced yourself that your god approved of it I wonder?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If there is absolute morality, then what we would have done and what other people were doing at the time is totally irrelevant. Why isn't slavery condemned as morally wrong throughout the bible?

For that matter why did god order genocide in the OT?

Either the bible is wrong or Christian absolute morality is wrong.

I think you will agree the bible makes it clear that the world was absolutely moral at the start until the human decision to alienate itself from absolute morality.
The world is therefore fallen and God then works with humanity as it is. The Old testament then forms an account of the development of a nation who have a certain revelation of God
which God wants to preserve. God navigates the isrealites through ancient peace and warfare.

Why then should the jewish religion be so imperfectly preserved in the world where everything is tainted and there is no effective absolute morality? The answer is that it is a vehicle for the eventual saviour of individuals of any and every nation Jesus Christ.

I think your mistake is not recognising the fallen imperfect state of the world where absolute morality is not exercised

[Stranger]

I think you will agree the bible makes it clear that the world was absolutely moral at the start until the human decision to alienate itself from absolute morality.
The world is therefore fallen and God then works with humanity as it is. The Old testament then forms an account of the development of a nation who have a certain revelation of God
which God wants to preserve. God navigates the isrealites through ancient piece and warfare.

Why then should the jewish religion be so imperfectly preserved in the world where everything is tainted and there is no effective absolute morality? The answer is that it is a vehicle for the eventual saviour of individuals of any and every nation Jesus Christ.

I think your mistake is not recognising the fallen imperfect state of the world where absolute morality is not exercised

Wow (bullshit)²

Firstly, the 'fallen state of the world' is another example of a vile injustice perpetrated by your god (according to your storybook). Collective punishment of the whole planet because of some couple eating some fruit (or whatever you think it represents). Then, because of our 'fallen' nature, we all end up being sinners and unable to please your god, so it punishes again for being punished for something, we personally, never chose in the first place. Then it offers to 'save' us from being punished for being punished but only if we believe this daft, insane nonsense.

Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that 'absolute morality' isn't absolute at all because god just makes up temporary variations to suit the circumstances...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wow (bullshit)²

Firstly, the 'fallen state of the world' is another example of a vile injustice perpetrated by your god (according to your storybook). Collective punishment of the whole planet because of some couple eating some fruit (or whatever you think it represents). Then, because of our 'fallen' nature, we all end up being sinners and unable to please your god, so it punishes again for being punished for something, we personally, never chose in the first place. Then it offers to 'save' us from being punished for being punished but only if we believe this daft, insane nonsense.

Secondly, you seem to be suggesting that 'absolute morality' isn't absolute at all because god just makes up temporary variations to suit the circumstances...

Oh yes the world is universally a paradise isn't it. Everybody in it is wonderful and we must never forget ........the candyman can.....make the world feel good...id like to buy the world a coke tra la la la la la.

[Stranger]

Oh yes the world is universally a paradise isn't it...

I suggest reading my post again and trying to engage your brain this time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suggest reading my post again and trying to engage your brain this time.

It's assumptions are not biblical but purported to be Stranger.

[Stranger]

It's assumptions are not biblical...

In what way? Come on, be specific.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In what way? Come on, be specific.

We are sinners of our own account that is clear throughout the bible and not just one book
from where the not universal doctrine of original sin comes. We can please God by turning to him. Acts in the OT were pleasing to God. Though we cannot attain salvation by Good works that is no barrier to God since we have Jesus Christ to whom we have to turn to.

Absolute morality is edenic namely walking with God in an environment where everything is in accordance with God. The world is not like that and that has a history. That is reflected in doctrinal formulations such as original sin, imputed sin etc.

Your version leaves people completely innocent. That might be your belief but it is not the biblical belief.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I think your mistake...

Actually the mistake was the jump from "the Bible says" to "therefore" with no connecting logic between. So far at least all we have is, "the Bible says X, therefore the Bible says X".

If any Christian would like to post something about his or her faith that isn't vapid though I'd be interested to see it - Matron is getting tetchy with me for picking the currants out of the garibaldis and I'm getting a little tired of the Twilight Years home's insistence on Battenberg cake for pud.

   

[bluehillside Retd.]

We are sinners of our own account that is clear throughout the bible and not just one book
from where the not universal doctrine of original sin comes. We can please God by turning to him. Acts in the OT were pleasing to God. Though we cannot attain salvation by Good works that is no barrier to God since we have Jesus Christ to whom we have to turn to.

Absolute morality is edenic namely walking with God in an environment where everything is in accordance with God. The world is not like that and that has a history. That is reflected in doctrinal formulations such as original sin, imputed sin etc.

Your version leaves people completely innocent. That might be your belief but it is not the biblical belief.

So a book says what a book says. Assertion-free positions are also available from other Christians (or at least I hope they are).

[Alan Burns]

If it is predetermined by your actual nature, the person you are, all of your nature and nurture, your experience, your faith, your desires, your likes and dislikes and so on, applied to the situation at hand, in what way is it not your free choice?

If it is pre determined by these things it is not a free choice. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

If it is pre determined by these things it is not a free choice.

No choice is "free" in the sense you intend it because that would mean that it's random, chaotic. The only freedom is the colloquial sense of being "free" to choose either tea or coffee.

But then again, you know that already don't you.

   

[Stranger]

We are sinners of our own account that is clear throughout the bible and not just one book
from where the not universal doctrine of original sin comes.

Quite apart from the utter absurdity of any kind of free will from the point of view of an omnipotent and omniscient creator (the determinism/random argument that has taken up a good part of this thread recently), if we are all sinners by our own account - then the test is obviously inappropriate to our human nature (and your god is supposedly responsible for both). If there was any genuine choice involved, then at least some people would not be sinners.

Absolute morality is edenic namely walking with God in an environment where everything is in accordance with God. The world is not like that and that has a history. That is reflected in doctrinal formulations such as original sin, imputed sin etc.

Firstly, so despite all your talk of absolute morality, you don't actually think it's possible outside of paradise - fat lot of use it is, then.

Secondly, even if it isn't attainable, why isn't it actually outlined in the bible - why the instructions in the OT to commit morally repugnant acts (taking slaves, committing genocide, and so on)?

Your version leaves people completely innocent. That might be your belief but it is not the biblical belief.

For the reasons stated, an omnipotent, omniscient creator would also be omni-responsible.

I don't know what you think is my version, I don't actually believe there is such a being, I'm just commenting on the Christian superstitions (many, varied, and contradictory as they are).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So a book says what a book says. Assertion-free positions are also available from other Christians (or at least I hope they are).

You are off the mark a bit here.
Stranger has stated what he thinks is biblical(promoted by the bible) and I am correcting him on what the bible says/ is biblical. Both of us are just stating what is in the bible and what we consider it means. Your complaint is therefore irrelevent and not apt.

[Stranger]

If it is pre determined by these things it is not a free choice.

So once again, you've totally ignored the substance of the argument I presented and just posted a silly, bland, inane, and simplistic assertion that is totally contradicted by logic.

How does randomness (not predetermined) make you free?

ETA: And if your choices are not determined by who you are and the circumstances you are in, what is it that you think you are setting free?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Quite apart from the utter absurdity of any kind of free will from the point of view of an omnipotent and omniscient creator (the determinism/random argument that has taken up a good part of this thread recently), if we are all sinners by our own account - then the test is obviously inappropriate to our human nature (and your god is supposedly responsible for both). If there was any genuine choice involved, then at least some people would not be sinners.

Firstly, so despite all your talk of absolute morality, you don't actually think it's possible outside of paradise - fat lot of use it is, then.

Secondly, even if it isn't attainable, why isn't it actually outlined in the bible - why the instructions in the OT to commit morally repugnant acts (taking slaves, committing genocide, and so on)?

For the reasons stated, an omnipotent, omniscient creator would also be omni-responsible.

I don't know what you think is my version, I don't actually believe there is such a being, I'm just commenting on the Christian superstitions (many, varied, and contradictory as they are).

Quite apart from the utter absurdity of any kind of free will from the point of view of an omnipotent and omniscient creator (the determinism/random argument that has taken up a good part of this thread recently), if we are all sinners by our own account - then the test is obviously inappropriate to our human nature (and your god is supposedly responsible for both). If there was any genuine choice involved, then at least some people would not be sinners.

Firstly, so despite all your talk of absolute morality, you don't actually think it's possible outside of paradise - fat lot of use it is, then.

Secondly, even if it isn't attainable, why isn't it actually outlined in the bible - why the instructions in the OT to commit morally repugnant acts (taking slaves, committing genocide, and so on)?

For the reasons stated, an omnipotent, omniscient creator would also be omni-responsible.

I don't know what you think is my version, I don't actually believe there is such a being, I'm just commenting on the Christian superstitions (many, varied, and contradictory as they are).

All I'm saying is what you call biblical is your own ideas not that of the bible.

Vis a vis the sinner thing we know that Jesus chose not to sin and enjoyed unbroken communion with God. Secondly you are reiterating in your own form the doctrine of original sin. Where you are definitively at variance with the bible though is that being sinners, finding ourselves putting ourselves first over others in even the most trivial of circumstances we are now hopelessly lost. We aren't, we have Jesus...This original sin, this inability not to be travelling away from God has been sorted in him If only we will avail ourselves of Jesus.

As for choosing not to be a sinner that, at the end of the day, means choosing God rather than to do this or that, which after all is the message of the bible

[floo]

All I'm saying is what you call biblical is your own ideas not that of the bible.

Vis a vis the sinner thing we know that Jesus chose not to sin and enjoyed unbroken communion with God. Secondly you are reiterating in your own form the doctrine of original sin. Where you are definitively at variance with the bible though is that being sinners, finding ourselves putting ourselves first over others in even the most trivial of circumstances we are now hopelessly lost. We aren't, we have Jesus...This original sin, this inability not to be travelling away from God has been sorted in him If only we will avail ourselves of Jesus.

As for choosing not to be a sinner that, at the end of the day, means choosing God rather than to do this or that, which after all is the message of the bible

So playing silly exorcism hocus pocus and frightening a herd of pigs over a cliff, and not compensating the farmer, trashing the Temple, which is vandalism, is not wrong? Oh come on, Jesus was a human just like the rest of us and far from perfect.

[bluehillside Retd.]

All I'm saying is what you call biblical is your own ideas not that of the bible.

The Bible is so sufficiently vague, internally contradictory and ambiguous that you can pretty much assert it to mean whatever you want it to mean. Fred Phelps and Desmond Tutu alike each think they have biblical authority for their (very different) positions.   

Vis a vis the sinner thing we know that Jesus chose not to sin and enjoyed unbroken communion with God.

"The thing we know" is only that the Bible says that. 

Secondly you are reiterating in your own form the doctrine of original sin. Where you are definitively at variance with the bible though is that being sinners, finding ourselves putting ourselves first over others in even the most trivial of circumstances we are now hopelessly lost.

Good luck with explaining why your interpretation is better aligned with the intentions of the various authors than Stranger's.   

We aren't, we have Jesus...This original sin, this inability not to be travelling away from God has been sorted in him If only we will avail ourselves of Jesus.

So the Bible (apparently) claims.

As for choosing not to be a sinner that, at the end of the day, means choosing God rather than to do this or that, which after all is the message of the bible

And again he blurs reality with "the message of the Bible" and hopes no-one notices.

[Stranger]

Where you are definitively at variance with the bible though is that being sinners, finding ourselves putting ourselves first over others in even the most trivial of circumstances we are now hopelessly lost. We aren't, we have Jesus...This original sin, this inability not to be travelling away from God has been sorted in him If only we will avail ourselves of Jesus.

You can dress it up all you want but if everybody (except Jesus who was god) is a sinner and "hopelessly lost" - then it can't possibly be a genuine choice that ordinary humans can make - if it were, there would be some who made the other choice; some people who were not lost and didn't need forgiveness.