Atheistic Confusion

[jimmydiggs]

It doesn't say that slavery is OK. Not anywhere. When you find stuff that supports slavery, lemme know.

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. 24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 25 For you were straying like sheep, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

No where in the New Testament is slavery condemned. Some things that are commonly associated with it, yes, but it is never condemned.

Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

God does not resent homosexuals themselves. God resents what they do. And God DOES NOT HATE on disabled people. When you find THAT verse, once again, lemme know.

Psalm 5:5
The boastful shall not stand before your eyes;
you hate all evildoers.

Edit:
Isaiah 53:10
10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand.

 

[Caroleen]

Personally I think it's good for growing Christians to go through some doubt as hopefully, by the grace of God, they'll come through at the other end with a stronger faith! This article was an eye-opener for me, I reckon all Christians should read it

The Fish Tank: doubt.

 

[lil_christian]

I agree that it is much better in the new testament... but as you say. It is for the most part - there are still things like:

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

And

Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Exodus 21:7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.


Exodus 21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.

And... about them being not valid:

Matthew 5:17 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. For 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. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Sure...

Leviticus 21:17: Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries."

Well... I actually think that God could have sent the sinful people a warning. If a angel with a flaming sword had appeared before them and said "stop sinning or you will be punished" i actually think that a lot more people would have turned to Christianity. So burning cities and drowning the world is a bit... harsh.

Well... firstly... I do not think that God did all these things in the OT. That is part of the old Jewish mythology and as many other things there are more myths than proven facts. It is not before the NT that we can see the Christian God in his true form when Jesus comes to save us.

Love
Anna

*sigh* Right now...all I can do is shake my head in disappointment. Are you saying the OT is mythology??

 

[EverythingAE]

In the discussion of slavery: It's a different culture and time. The definition of slavery we have today is completely different from the dark and twisted version of salvery we have in these modern times.

 

[kayem77]

Just wanted to clarify something for Nattmaran about slavery....

Slavery in the OT is a different kind of slavery, it's not the kind of slavery we have nowadays like human trafficking, or racial slavery, it was not like a few centuries ago where the europeans just went to Africa and stole humans to sell them. Slaves actually had rights and if someone from the master's family married them, they would stop being slaves and become family.

Stealing people to sell them was prohibited and was punished with death:
Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. Exodus 21:16

It seems like slaves decided to sell themselves because that way the master would provide for their families. God also tells the masters to remember that they were once slaves, so it seems like He wanted to make sure they weren't unfair with their slaves.

"If your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you and serves you six years, then in the seventh year you shall let him go free from you. "And when you send him away free from you, you shall not let him go away empty-handed; "you shall supply him liberally from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress. From what the LORD has blessed you with, you shall give to him. "You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you; therefore I command you this thing today. Deutoronomy 15: 12-15

Maybe the Bible doesn't necessarily condemn slavery, but as with ever historical events in the Bible you can't just read it and put your own interpreation on it. In the OT, slavery at least in the Jewish culture was not that bad, compared to starve to death, it was a good deal for the slaves and their families. They would be welcomed in the master's house, they would work for them, and the master was forced to provide for every need they had. If they wanted to leave at the seventh year, they were free to leave, but they also had the option to stay.

It's hard to read the OT with an OT mind, be careful not to put your own interpretation on them and try to understand the context behind it. God didn't give us the Bible to change society, His purpose is to change our hearts and at the end, only a changed heart can change the way society works.

 

[Red_Tory]

The french revolution?

Stalin?

Really? How did we get there?

I am not that into History but neither the Russian revolution nor the French revolution where atheists movements. They did not revolt because they where atheists.

Russian revolution (and Stalin): Russia was a country where the people living there where held under the boot of the Tzars (the noble rulers). Living standards where miserable, money went only to the top of society and the church that told the people that it was the divine order that the tzars ruled and the peasants worked. Meanwhile the rest of the world evolved. Normal people got rights, women got the right to vote and in Russia people on the countryside where slaves under their lords until 1861 (which made it the last country in Europe to allow slavery... North America of course where a bit worse and had slavery until 1865). So when the people revolted it was not because they where atheists but because they wanted rights as everybody else. The hatred towards the clergy was because they had helped the nobles to suppress the people (and get rich in the process doing so). Then of course, the wrong people came into power. They did not like the church since it was a rival to them when it came to power. So they set out to oppress it... So Stalin was an atheist (i guess) but he did not start a revolution because of that.

French revolution: Sort of the same story as the Russian revolution. The people did fight for their rights - and since the church and helped the rulers in keeping them down they where not liked.

In both these cases (Russian and French revolution) I would say that the hatred towards the christian churches was "justified" in that the priests, bishops and cardinals sided with the power in the country, gaining money and prestige (bribes to look away and to tell them lies) and did not speak for the people.

Now... this is just Discovery and Wikipedia-knowledge... so correct me if I am wrong.

Marxism (communism) is an explicitly atheistic ideology, and it's astonishingly ridiculous to claim that people such as Stalin were concerned with the "people's rights", given that they set up a regime far worse than anything the last of the Tsars ever did. Very little - if anything - in human history can even come close to matching the savage violence of the communists. Totalitarian state? Red Terror? Genocide? Twenty million dead? Yeah, they really cared about "rights"...

French Revolution? It was an atheistic (or, as I pointed out, perhaps bordering on deist) movement born of Enlightenment philosophy with the goal of deposing divinely instiuted authority. The result, of course, was quite similar to that of the Russian Revolution, albeit on a smaller scale: Jacobins, Reign of Terror, genocide in the Vendee etc... Those who claim to march under the banner of democracy, natural equality, and progress (all of which are atheistic enlightenment principles) are typically the most horrific tyrants of all, and often establish the most terrifying regimes.

'If, snatching away the mask of the Revolution, you asked her, "Who are you?" she would answer:

"I am not what you think I am. Many speak of me, and yet few know me. I am not Freemasonry conspiring in secret, nor the riot which roars in the streets, nor the change from monarchy to republic, nor the substitution of one dynasty for another, nor a temporary distur...bance in public order. I am not the howls of the Jacobins, nor the fighting on the barricades, nor pillage, nor arson, nor land laws, nor the guillotine, nor the drownings. I am neither Marat nor Robespierre...nor Mazzini, nor Kossuth. These men are my sons but I am not they. These things are my works—they are not me. These men and these deeds are transitory facts, but I am a permanent condition.

"I am the hatred of every religious and social order not established by Man and in which he himself is not both king and god; I am the proclamation of the rights of man against the rights of God; I am the philosophy of rebellion, the politics of rebellion, the religion of rebellion; I am armed nihilism; I am the founding of the religious and social state on the will of Man in place of the will of God! I am God dethroned and Man put in his place. This is why I am called Revolution; it means reversal, because I put on high that which should be low according to the eternal laws, and I put low what should be on high."

That sums it up quite accurately.

 

[Red_Tory]

Normal people got rights, women got the right to vote and in Russia people on the countryside where slaves under their lords until 1861 (which made it the last country in Europe to allow slavery... North America of course where a bit worse and had slavery until 1865). So when the people revolted it was not because they where atheists but because they wanted rights as everybody else.

Oh, and remember that the "rights" possessed by people in the other nations to which you refer (presumably England, France [post-revolution], Austria etc.) - namely civil/economic liberty and property rights - do not exist from a revolutionary Marxist perspective, given that they are supposedly a creation of the bourgeois designed to protect their control over the means of production. It should therefore come as no surprise that the revolutionary state is perhaps the greatest violator of rights in our civilisation's long history.

 

[olderisgood62]

There are very few things that really get to me. Reading through this thread I saw the two that are on the top of the list that really get to me. The first is belittling God. That is a very dangerous thing. Our God is The Only True God. He is not "One of the many gods of that time" one really must be careful when taking that road. It brings to question if that was. What the prophets of Baal thought when they went up against Elijah. Of course that could be argued as one of those tales of Jewish mythology.
So there we hit the second. The Bible is not a collection of Jewish mythology. It is Gods inspired word. You can't just pick and choose what parts you like and discard the ones you don't. It is what it is. The only reason you don't like what it shows in those parts you want to get rid of is because you know you can't follow it or you interpreted it wrong and you then claim its not fact.
When you do this you really are stepping out on your own. Jesus told us "If you deny me, I will deny you to my Father" he also said "I and my father are one" so you have just belittled the one you claimed to believe in. The one that we are told "and the word was made flesh" and let's not forget "In the beginning was God and the word was with God and the word was God". You can't separate the three. If you take anything away from any one of them, you take it away from all of them. This is called "context". If you take something out it becomes out of context. And what is left is no longer contextual.

"The Old Testament is The New Testament concealed. The New Testament is The Old Testament revealed. "
-Francis Kahabka

The original question was why do you believe there is a God. From what I read you did not answer that question. But I would bet that the one who asked it is convinced that Christians can't agree on what they believe much less who they believe in. From that I would also guess that rather than enter that confusion they would rather just remain believing what they do. And if that is the case rather than leading them to Christ they are staying away from the confusion. So really, you chased them right back onto the path headed to hell.

 

[Nattmaran]

*sigh* Right now...all I can do is shake my head in disappointment. Are you saying the OT is mythology??

You asked me to answer your questions and I did. And now you shake your head about something completely different? Where the answers not to your liking?

 

[Nattmaran]

In the discussion of slavery: It's a different culture and time. The definition of slavery we have today is completely different from the dark and twisted version of salvery we have in these modern times.

I agree!

The bilbe was written a long time ago in a tribal era. The egyptians, the romans and other primitive had dominated the earth with their views on human worth.

We have started to move away from that and left much of that primitive thinking behind.

And just as they where into slavery, stoning and things like that they resented women, homosexuals and other groups of disbelievers. So I am saying that you'll have to look at it from a whole different perspective.

 

[Nattmaran]

Just wanted to clarify something for Nattmaran about slavery....

Please do!

Slavery in the OT is a different kind of slavery, it's not the kind of slavery we have nowadays like human trafficking, or racial slavery, it was not like a few centuries ago where the europeans just went to Africa and stole humans to sell them. Slaves actually had rights and if someone from the master's family married them, they would stop being slaves and become family.

Ah.. just like the paganistic Romans then. There you could marry your slaves. And your slaves could also save money and buy themselves to be free.

Maybe the Bible doesn't necessarily condemn slavery, but as with ever historical events in the Bible you can't just read it and put your own interpreation on it. In the OT, slavery at least in the Jewish culture was not that bad, compared to starve to death, it was a good deal for the slaves and their families. They would be welcomed in the master's house, they would work for them, and the master was forced to provide for every need they had. If they wanted to leave at the seventh year, they were free to leave, but they also had the option to stay.

Are you serious?
Wow... this opens up a completely new way of doing business. Enslaving people, removing their rights. They can work in factories 6 days a week, 12 hours a day, they can get payed in food and after seven years they get a toaster. Wow... awesome.

It's hard to read the OT with an OT mind, be careful not to put your own interpretation on them and try to understand the context behind it. God didn't give us the Bible to change society, His purpose is to change our hearts and at the end, only a changed heart can change the way society works.

Yes... and the slavery part in the OT is not really helping in shaping a better society. Not when you seriously try to defend it!

 

[Nattmaran]

Marxism (communism) is an explicitly atheistic ideology, and it's astonishingly ridiculous to claim that people such as Stalin were concerned with the "people's rights", given that they set up a regime far worse than anything the last of the Tsars ever did. Very little - if anything - in human history can even come close to matching the savage violence of the communists. Totalitarian state? Red Terror? Genocide? Twenty million dead? Yeah, they really cared about "rights"...

Hey... I am not saying that it was good. Far from it! I was just saying that the cause of the revolution was because of injustice in society and that people lived as slaves.

The people did not rebel because they where atheists and wanted to live in a totalitarian state with oppression and mass executions. It was the wrong people that came to power.

If you compare it to Iran for example, the people there did rebel in the 60's (i think) because they felt that they where oppressed. They wanted freedom of speech, more rights and freedom to become what they want. Sadly the only ones that who where organized where the fanatic Islamists and when they got power the people in Iran got it even worse than before and the rights of women where pushed down even further.

French Revolution? It was an atheistic (or, as I pointed out, perhaps bordering on deist) movement born of Enlightenment philosophy with the goal of deposing divinely instiuted authority.

Exactly! The church and the king... the people wanted them away and to have freedom. And the French revolution shocked the noble houses in Europe and I guess that it sort of made them realize that their powers where failing.

I do not think that revolution is a bad thing. The revolutions in the arabic countries where they have risen up against tyrants is justified I think.

I think that the American revolution was a good thing. Of course not as good as Gandhi did it in India where he made the UK to give up India without the violence...

But of course... you should be careful with whom you join up with when you plan to make a revolt.

 

[Nattmaran]

Oh, and remember that the "rights" possessed by people in the other nations to which you refer (presumably England, France [post-revolution], Austria etc.) - namely civil/economic liberty and property rights - do not exist from a revolutionary Marxist perspective, given that they are supposedly a creation of the bourgeois designed to protect their control over the means of production. It should therefore come as no surprise that the revolutionary state is perhaps the greatest violator of rights in our civilisation's long history.

There where several different political groups that joined up in the revolution. Everyone was tired against the oppression. The revolution (or rather revolutions) where not a marxist movement as such. But it was the communist that came to power that is true... as we all know.

 

[EverythingAE]

And just as they where into slavery, stoning and things like that they resented women, homosexuals and other groups of disbelievers. So I am saying that you'll have to look at it from a whole different perspective.

That's where I believe you're wrong. Firstly, the concept of homosexuality was not around at all; the writers of the Old Testament (and the New) had little to no idea of the concept. So even the fact that Paul talked to the men of the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 6:9) about being denied entrance into the kingdom of God for being, "...neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,"

IS INCREDIBLE. Paul is influenced by the Holy Spirit to talk to these men-- which have apparently been dabbling in fornication, idolatry, adultery, acting like women, and having sexual relations with other men -- warning them about imminent spiritual death if they don't stop sinning.

Now, I firmly believe that God's love is eternal and never changing; but a loving and perfect God must also judge. As God is perfect, sin is a DISGUSTING AND VILE concept for him. So as many people say: God loves the sinner, but he hates the sin.

 

[Nattmaran]

That's where I believe you're wrong. Firstly, the concept of homosexuality was not around at all; the writers of the Old Testament (and the New) had little to no idea of the concept.

Homosexuality was quite common in greece and rome. So I do not think that it was nothing that people did not know about.

So even the fact that Paul talked to the men of the church in Corinth (1 Corinthians 6:9) about being denied entrance into the kingdom of God for being, "...neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,"
IS INCREDIBLE. Paul is influenced by the Holy Spirit to talk to these men-- which have apparently been dabbling in fornication, idolatry, adultery, acting like women, and having sexual relations with other men -- warning them about imminent spiritual death if they don't stop sinning.

Huh... what do you mean?

Now, I firmly believe that God's love is eternal and never changing; but a loving and perfect God must also judge. As God is perfect, sin is a DISGUSTING AND VILE concept for him. So as many people say: God loves the sinner, but he hates the sin.

God judge peoples hearts. Not if they love, or have sex with someone of the same gender.

 

[EverythingAE]

God judge peoples hearts. Not if they love, or have sex with someone of the same gender.

How can one's heart be clean if one is sinning and blatantly going againsts our body's design (that God created)?

Btw, sorry about that last argument. I wrote it out wrong and didn't do sufficient research.

Sent from my fingers using Tapatalk

 

[Nattmaran]

How can one's heart be clean if one is sinning and blatantly going againsts our body's design (that God created)?

If you love men you should marry a man, if you love a women then marry a woman. I would say it is even more sinful to go against your nature.

 

[EverythingAE]

If you love men you should marry a man, if you love a women then marry a woman. I would say it is even more sinful to go against your nature.

So, if I like porn I can watch it?
If I like to rape children, I should do it?
If I love to worship false gods, I should do it?

Your logic makes no sense. Our human nature is twisted, dark, and overall not compliant with our spiritual side. There is a never ending battle between our flesh and our spirit.

Sent from my fingers using Tapatalk

 

[EverythingAE]

Also, even if your logic is valid, what is our nature? Did God create Adam and Steve? Or Eve and Naomi? (Sorry for the rhyming ) God created a system of reproduction and family that works.

Lastly, I need to stop arguing over the internet. Haha!

 

[lil_christian]

If you love men you should marry a man, if you love a women then marry a woman. I would say it is even more sinful to go against your nature.

Don't be like Israel.

Judges 17:6
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

In the time of Judges...Israel rejected God as King and did what was right in their own eyes. That's the problem with today's world. The world does what's right in their own eyes. They encourage people to "Only do what's natural." Well no, we shouldn't. The flesh is weak. The heart deceives. Be discerning. Don't let Satan get to your heart. At ANY given opportunity, HE WILL.

Our nature is SINFUL. That's why we need Jesus!