Deuteronomy?

Originally posted by galveston75
Good reply....

not so much.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Lighten up, man.
I think his OP was perfectly reasonable, in fact I've seen nothing but perfectly reasonable and measured responses (and threads) from avalanchethecat.

If you dont want to partake then dont.

Sheeese...

Are you sure you're not confusing him with RJHinds or some other one like that?


And so far it seems we have lengthy resp ...[text shortened]... .

This is not the first time I have defended a brother who has not deserved such treatment.

Good comment also. Hey I sometimes give long answers too? Lol. "As I'm patting myself on my head." 🙂

Originally posted by googlefudge
not so much.

Probably would not seem to be a good answer if one does not understand the laws and what God instituted them for and then why they were fulfilled by Jesus just as prophecy said he would, then they are no doubt hard to understand as I can see you are having a problem with.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Why is there a need for any Christian to justify or explain the contents of the Old Testament. Christians are followers of Christ. Christ's commandments are in the New Testament. Do you have a question about the commandments of Christ?

i have a question about the commandments of christ.

How many (roughly) commandments did he have? (I will have a more specific follow up question, depending on your answer. )

Originally posted by googlefudge
Nothing in there that prohibits slavery.

In fact it expressly states...

Servants, be faithful, even to bad masters (Eph. 6:5-8)

servants in those days being slaves.

So Christianity not only doesn't condemn but condones slavery.

It does say:

As you would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them (Matt. 7:12).

and

Exercise lordship over no one (Matt. 23:11).

Originally posted by galveston75
Probably would not seem to be a good answer if one does not understand the laws and what God instituted them for and then why they were fulfilled by Jesus just as prophecy said he would, then they are no doubt hard to understand as I can see you are having a problem with.

Way to be condescending while being wrong... really looks good on you.


I don't have any trouble understanding mosaic law or the bible.

It was a bad response because it didn't address my point or questions.

I argue that the OT matters because it was the same god that either wrote or inspired it
and thus offers insight into gods character and morality.

The response I got was that the OT doesn't matter because it has been replaced with the NT.

This spectacularly fails to address my point and thus is not a good response.

Originally posted by RJHinds
All have sinned and come short of the glory of God. This is why we all need
God's grace. For none of us are righteous. It is our belief and faith in the only
true God that is counted for righteousness.

Not all. That is another truism. I would say most.
And it's not because of their sins (well not your interpretation of "sin" ), it is because MOST have misunderstood what life means, the polarities, the subtleties, and basically
haven't even got in the right ballpark before they started swinging .

Originally posted by JS357
It does say:

As you would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them (Matt. 7:12).

and

Exercise lordship over no one (Matt. 23:11).

Well you can stretch some things to mean that you shouldn't keep slaves
but there is nothing outright the says "you shall not own another human being"
or similar.

And when you couple this with the OT setting up rules and laws for the treatment of your slaves.

JC saying that the mosaic laws are to be changed "not one jot".

And the numerous mentions of servants and maids (slaves) with not one peep against slavery
you are on pretty shaky to non-existent ground to claim that the bible is against slavery.


Now given that 'god' is perfectly clear about all kinds of things like not working on the Sabbath and
how homosexuals should be stoned to death you would have thought that if slavery was so bad
that it would be clearly mentioned somewhere that keeping slaves is wrong and you shouldn't do it.


The fact that you have to construe certain passages to possibly mean that slavery might be bad is
a good indication that the bible does not specifically prohibit it anywhere.

And as I said, in the OT it is flat out encouraged.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Lighten up, man.
I think his OP was perfectly reasonable, in fact I've seen nothing but perfectly reasonable and measured responses (and threads) from avalanchethecat.

If you dont want to partake then dont.

Sheeese...

Are you sure you're not confusing him with RJHinds or some other one like that?


And so far it seems we have lengthy resp ...[text shortened]... .

This is not the first time I have defended a brother who has not deserved such treatment.

"And so far it seems we have lengthy responses from non-christians, with the exception of jaywill. "

Hey, my lengthy response is the NT's fault. Or the Christadelphians'. 🙂

It seemed only appropriate to state the commands of the new covenant, since differences from the OT covenant seemed relevant. I was surprised at their quantity.

Originally posted by JS357
"And so far it seems we have lengthy responses from non-christians, with the exception of jaywill. "

Hey, my lengthy response is the NT's fault. Or the Christadelphians'. 🙂

It seemed only appropriate to state the commands of the new covenant, since differences from the OT covenant seemed relevant. I was surprised at their quantity.

Well there are over 600 in the OT so be thankful it was so few.

Originally posted by galveston75
Good comment also. Hey I sometimes give long answers too? Lol. "As I'm patting myself on my head." 🙂

Thank you.

I hope you can see that I am a defender of truth and not of particular people.
Remember I have defended rajk from you and robbie before. But it was not rajk who I was defending, it was my perceived truth in the said matter.

We can let this rest now, unless you have something significant further to add . 🙂

Originally posted by JS357
"And so far it seems we have lengthy responses from non-christians, with the exception of jaywill. "

Hey, my lengthy response is the NT's fault. Or the Christadelphians'. 🙂

It seemed only appropriate to state the commands of the new covenant, since differences from the OT covenant seemed relevant. I was surprised at their quantity.

Aye.

(I have no probs with lengthy response when they are apt)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Not all. That is another truism. I would say most.
And it's not because of their sins (well not your interpretation of "sin" ), it is because MOST have misunderstood what life means, the polarities, the subtleties, and basically
haven't even got in the right ballpark before they started swinging .

I didn't think you believed in god, I thought you believed in some new age alieny thing.


Given sin is going against the commands of (or just upsetting) a god or gods,
Sin is a meaningless and irrelevant (and frankly offensive) concept for anyone and everyone
who doesn't have a belief in a god or gods...


Sin doesn't exist.
And the concept of original sin is offensive, as is the idea that we all need to be 'saved' from it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well you can stretch some things to mean that you shouldn't keep slaves
but there is nothing outright the says "you shall not own another human being"
or similar.

And when you couple this with the OT setting up rules and laws for the treatment of your slaves.

JC saying that the mosaic laws are to be changed "not one jot".

And the numerous me pecifically prohibit it anywhere.

And as I said, in the OT it is flat out encouraged.

I am coming at this as a non-theist trying to make as much sense of things as is reasonable. It makes sense (to me) that Jesus and the early writers had some changes in mind, but WRT slavery, did not want to upset the applecart too much. So following the golden rule and not exercising lordship were admonitions for personal conduct among the Jews of Palestine, that would affect the treatment of slaves and servants, but were not calls for revolution in the social structure. This also fits in with Jesus' claim not to be changing one jot or tittle of the law.

Edit: I think your approach is more targeted toward those who are coming at it from a Christian perspective. I assume that my approach will be unsatisfying to them, too.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Way to be condescending while being wrong... really looks good on you.


I don't have any trouble understanding mosaic law or the bible.

It was a bad response because it didn't address my point or questions.

I argue that the OT matters because it was the same god that either wrote or inspired it
and thus offers insight into gods character and ...[text shortened]... with the NT.

This spectacularly fails to address my point and thus is not a good response.

Sorry if I sounded rude. But it appears by your answer that you don't understand why the laws existed and then abolished and why Jesus's coming to earth fulfilled those laws. Am I correct? If not I apologize.