Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

So loving and compassionate that he endorses and advocates slavery? Lev. 25:44.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Actually, I've done extensive research on slavery in the Old Testament. The type of slavery advocated by God doesn't look anything at all like the typical images of slavery that we imagine today. A few points to note:

1. Kidnapping (the most common way of obtaining slaves in the ancient Near East) was strictly forbidden, and punishable by death.

2. A slave was only required to work for 6 years of service to a master. After that, the master was required to release him, unless the slave opted to renew his term of service.

3. A slave was not to be abused. Any injury received from a master was grounds of dismissal and freedom.

4. A slave (particularly female slaves) were to be treated as part of the family. They could not be married against their will or sexually abused. And if the master married one of his slaves, either himself or to one of his family members, then the slave was permanently free and a member of the family, with equal rights and privileges.

5. Slaves were not required to work on the Sabbath, or during Sabbath years.

6. In Israel, there were three main reasons for slavery: (1) to punish thieves that could not pay restitution for their crimes, (2) to enable poor, struggling, debt-ridden families to find a way to care for themselves and their children during the most drastic, difficult times by placing them under the care of families that were more financially secure. And finally, (3) to control prisoners of war.

In fact, the restrictions the Bible places on slavery were considered so strict, that Rabbi Maimonides once wrote, "He who owns a slaves owns himself a master," because of the strict obligations a master had toward his slave.

So, you see, definitely not the same thing as the horrid practice of slavery we know from our nation's rather ugly history. I have a 12 page research paper on my old computer, but I could always dig it up and post it if necessary.

_________________

Well... actually, no, that didn't really answer the question, but it did clear up some other questions I had, so thanks . But what I was wondering was, if god has given us the right to not believe he exists, why does he (god) consider it a sin?

What do you mean by "right" not to believe? I'm not sure God ever gave us any such "right".

_________________

I guess it depends on how you look at it. I suppose it could be argued that Joshua 24:15, "Choose you this day whom ye will serve" is an expression that we can choose to believe or not to believe. However, choosing not to believe doesn't exempt us from the punishments resulting from transgressing eternal laws.

_________________

except, no. "anything short of perfection must be condemned to eternal separation from God"? not a chance. if God can wipe away someone's sins then He can wipe away someone's sins. and thousands of years before Jesus came around, it was already well known that the way to be forgiven your sins is to repent for them. and that even those sins that were not repented for in life could be purged between death and heaven. and it doesn't take all of eternity, either. so i'm afraid that's not a very convincing argument.

In the context, Joshua makes this declaration, not for the sake of offering them a choice, per se, but to motivate them to follow and serve the true God.

As for why God considers unbelief a sin, lets take a look at what the Scriptures say:

_________________

Ah...so there's an eternal penalty for [s]not preaching your dogma[/s] not believing what you believe?

Human Pumpkin, do you have something worthwhile to contribute to this thread?

_________________

Do you? That's a valid statement. I have a hard time tending to that sort of view. Sorry. I'll convert to a religion if that helps...(I'm serious, by the way)

Actually, I do have something "worthwhile", by most standards:

I don't believe there is a hell.

Well, to answer the question, Jesus did say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes unto the Father except by me."


So, at least from the perspective of Jesus and St. Paul, yes, there is only one way to heaven, and that is faith in Jesus Christ.

_________________

but you already have to believe in Jesus for that to have any validity, is the problem; it's a totally circular argument. and since i (as well as millions of people before me) have concluded that it's impossible for Jesus to have been the messiah, i don't take anything he says as theologically valid.

Except that I would contend that it's not a circular argument. I have strong reason from history for me to believe that he was entirely trustworthy, as were his disciples, and that what they had to say on the topic is in fact valid.

_________________

You'd better hope you're right, then.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

and i have strong reason both from history and from scripture that Jesus couldn't possibly have been the messiah, and not only that, but so much that he said blatantly contradicts not only itself but the scripture that preceded him, that he isn't particularly reliable even as a person, let alone a messiah.

the fact is that in order for Christianity to be true, Judaism has to be true but also not true at the same time. which is, i'm sure i don't have to tell you, impossible. therefore Christianity is impossible. and therefore i don't fear hell.

Yeah. I guess I'll just see when it happens.

Or it could be that you have simply misunderstood Judaism, and for that reason continue to misunderstand Jesus.

So here it is: reliable men, most of whom were willing to sacrifice themselves for what they believed to be the truth, wrote about the events surrounding the life of this man Jesus. And on at least two occasions, a voice from heaven is recorded as saying, "This is my son." And this man, Jesus, made some rather incredible claims about who he was and what he was sent to accomplish, but at the same time, performed some rather impressive deeds, which, from my perspective, validate his claims. So either he was lying about who he was (but then, one must wonder, where did he get the power to walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead), or he was delusional (but then again, considering that he kept telling his disciples that he would die and rise from the dead, and then did it), or he was who he claimed to be. What's more, he himself and his disciples seem fairly well versed in the Law and the Prophets. It just strikes me that they (and we who came after them) perhaps better understood their own faith better than those who rejected him.

And, if the people of Jesus' day misunderstood their own faith, it doesn't quite make the Christian faith contradictory as you claim. All it would mean is that Christ and his disciples understood the Jewish faith better than the Jews of his day. And frankly, that wouldn't be too surprising, considering that even his own followers didn't understand until after he rose from the dead.

_________________

do you seriously not see how not only presumptuous but circular that reasoning is, Didymus?

No, I don't. I begin with the texts and the men who wrote them. History gives me good reason to believe that these men were trustworthy in what they wrote (numerous accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth). A study of those events surrounding the life of Jesus then point me to the faith I confess. I don't see that as circular (and if it is circular, then it's a fairly complex circle).

_________________