Too Proud & Stubborn

Originally posted by Suzianne
Some Jews were wrong. The ones who were used to living off the fat of the Temple, and who had clear reason for nay-saying Jesus, were wrong. The ones who made a mockery of His Father's house by selling animals for sacrifice at inflated rates and the money changers who charged huge fees were wrong. Not "all" Jews. Jesus did not come to relieve Jews of their need to follow God's laws.

Like murder, slavery is wrong now, was always wrong and will always be wrong.

Jesus understood this:

Matthew 7
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

There is no room for condoning slavery in the above. The depiction of God as condoning slavery in the OT is wrong. The ancient Jews were wrong to depict this as the will of God.

You can keep trying to defend the depiction of God as condoning slavery if you like, but it's a ridiculously absurd depiction as is your defense of it. It's not the God of Jesus. YOUR God is ridiculously absurd.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You can keep trying to defend the depiction of God as condoning slavery if you like, but it's a ridiculously absurd depiction as is your defense of it. It's not the God of Jesus. YOUR God is ridiculously absurd.

Whose god is better? Suzi's god or ToO's god?

There's only one way to find out!

F I G H T !!!

http://harryhill.wikia.com/wiki/Which_is_better%3F_There's_only_one_way_to_find_out:_FIGHT!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Whose god is better? Suzi's god or ToO's god?

There's only one way to find out!

F I G H T !!!

http://harryhill.wikia.com/wiki/Which_is_better%3F_There's_only_one_way_to_find_out:_FIGHT!

If you read a bit more carefully, you'd know that actually it's Jesus' God vs Suzi's God.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you read a bit more carefully, you'd know that actually it's Jesus' God vs Suzi's God.

No, its your interpretation of Jesus' God vs Suzi's interpretation of Jesus' God.

Or your and Suzi's interpretations of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Johns interpretations.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, its your interpretation of Jesus' God vs Suzi's interpretation of Jesus' God.

Or your and Suzi's interpretations of Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke and Johns interpretations.

If it's only MY "interpretation", then you should have no trouble demonstrating how there is room for condoning slavery in Matthew 7:12.

While you're at it, you can also demonstrate how the words attributed to Jesus in Matthew 7:12 are Matthew's "interpretation".

This should be interesting.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you read a bit more carefully, you'd know that actually it's Jesus' God vs Suzi's God.

How very humble of you ...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If it's only MY "interpretation", then you should have no trouble demonstrating how there is room for condoning slavery in Matthew 7:12.

You mean I must present my interpretation of Matthews interpretation? And for some reason it must differ from yours or you can conclude that your interpretation is actually Jesus' true teaching?
Sorry, but I see some flaws in your logic.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You mean I must present my interpretation of Matthews interpretation? And for some reason it must differ from yours or you can conclude that your interpretation is actually Jesus' true teaching?
Sorry, but I see some flaws in your logic.

Maybe it is the plank in your own eye that you see.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe it is the plank in your own eye that you see.

I can see the plank quite clearly. In elegant script on its surface is carved the text "RJHinds has a log in his eye".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like murder, slavery is wrong now, was always wrong and will always be wrong.

Jesus understood this:

Matthew 7
12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

There is no room for condoning slavery in the above. The depiction of God as condoning slavery in the OT is ...[text shortened]... depiction as is your defense of it. It's not the God of Jesus. YOUR God is ridiculously absurd.

And if you think God has ever "condoned" slavery, then you're wrong, too.

Yeah, I see a perception problem here.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So I must apply? And I may or may not deserve it? Did you also have to apply? On what basis were you found deserving?
Seriously, you claimed that we were born equal with equal rights and deserving of equal things. I want to know why I must apply and you did not, and why I must be found deserving or not whereas you had to undergo no such scrutiny.

Everyone is automatically a citizen of the country they were born in. How is that not clear? And if you want to be a citizen of a country you were not born in, then you must apply for citizenship. How is this not clear?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Everyone is automatically a citizen of the country they were born in. How is that not clear? And if you want to be a citizen of a country you were not born in, then you must apply for citizenship. How is this not clear?

So it appears that you hold two contradictory facts to be 'self evident'.
What is very clear to me is that if everyone is automatically a citizen of the country they are born in, then they are not born equal.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I can see the plank quite clearly. In elegant script on its surface is carved the text "RJHinds has a log in his eye".

Only eye floaters. 😏

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you read a bit more carefully, you'd know that actually it's Jesus' God vs Suzi's God.

What happened to your god?

Or don't you have one?