Religion thread...

L.T. Fan said:
I did say that but this is not what you responded to. You call me a hypocrite because you thought I said you were envious of him when in reality Skidadle said that.
Click to expand...

disgusted-clint-eastwood.gif
 
L.T. Fan said:
Can't seem to interpret this one.
Click to expand...


Hermeneutics (/hɛrməˈnuːtɪks/ or /hɛrməˈnjuːtɪks/)[1] is the theory and methodology of text interpretation,[2][3] especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts.[4][5]
 
skidadl said:
Hermeneutics (/hɛrməˈnuːtɪks/ or /hɛrməˈnjuːtɪks/)[1] is the theory and methodology of text interpretation,[2][3] especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts.[4][5]
Click to expand...

My response was a hidden sarcasm. "Interpret"
 
L.T. Fan said:
So where is the line of separation with the ministry of Osteen and every other pastor or minister of the Christian faith? Are all that receive their livelihood as preachers and ministers feeding off people's fears? Are they hucksters and frauds as well? Is the line defined by how much money they make and if so what is the amount? That is after all what this is about isn't it?
Click to expand...

My issue on the matter isn't so much the money, although I do think there is a problem with excessive personal profits from a ministry. The issue I really have is the 'theology' or lack thereof. Does he preach the Gospel? Is he leading people to Christ? Or is he primarily just preaching a 'feel good' prosperity gospel instead of changing hearts?
 
VA Cowboy said:
My issue on the matter isn't so much the money, although I do think there is a problem with excessive personal profits from a ministry. The issue I really have is the 'theology' or lack thereof. Does he preach the Gospel? Is he leading people to Christ? Or is he primarily just preaching a 'feel good' prosperity gospel instead of changing hearts?
Click to expand...

Well VA, if you know the answers to your questions then you can probably come to an educated conclusion about him. If however, you don't know these answers then it is difficult to sit in judgement of him (or others) and make blanket allegations. This has been the position I have taken because I don't know the answers and simply wonder how others are making judgements about him or anyone without knowing these things.
 
L.T. Fan said:
Well VA, if you know the answers to your questions then you can probably come to an educated conclusion about him. If however, you don't know these answers then it is difficult to sit in judgement of him (or others) and make blanket allegations. This has been the position I have taken because I don't know the answers and simply wonder how others are making judgements about him or anyone without knowing these things.
Click to expand...

I've never really said much about him because I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and don't want to judge someone without knowing for certain. In this case since there was mention in this thread I did give my 2 cents based on what I have seen and heard from watching and listening to him. To me there's far less if any 'Gospel' and primarily feel good/inspirational prosperity type teachings. It could be he's totally sincere and actually preaches the real Gospel and I've just missed it. For sake of discussion I've only mentioned what I have seen/heard on the occasions I've watched him.
 
VA Cowboy said:
I've never really said much about him because I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and don't want to judge someone without knowing for certain. In this case since there was mention in this thread I did give my 2 cents based on what I have seen and heard from watching and listening to him. To me there's far less if any 'Gospel' and primarily feel good/inspirational prosperity type teachings. It could be he's totally sincere and actually preaches the real Gospel and I've just missed it. For sake of discussion I've only mentioned what I have seen/heard on the occasions I've watched him.
Click to expand...

We are about the same position. I don't know enough about him to take a position one way or the other. I give him the benefit of the doubt until I know conclusively.
 
L.T. Fan said:
We are about the same position. I don't know enough about him to take a position one way or the other. I give him the benefit of the doubt until I know conclusively.
Click to expand...



I'm about the same. I lean towards him having a good heart but I wouldn't fight you about it. Lots of good men have been corrupted
 
Some real scoundrels twisted the bible in eastern culture to make slavery an evil, terrible way of justifying their own greed and racial hatred.

What is extremely frustrating and hilarious is how deceived leftists are these days concerning their own government. Slavery in biblical days was exactly what socialism is today. Or at least pretty close. It's easy to take a topic like this and quickly twist it to meet your own personal beliefs. That belief could be for racist jerks who use the bible to justify greed or hateful non-believers who try to justify their doubt. Neither is accurate. I'm certain that neither group will do an honest study on the topic though.
 
BipolarFan said:
13100837_471250363075988_2124828973085244174_n.jpg
Click to expand...

Is your depiction of this statement meant to say that only black people were enslaved? You might want to check history and see how many nations and races have been enslaved. And by the way the "holy book" doesn't teach slavery is okay it just teaches that it occurred.
 
Beating slaves was perfectly allowable under the following rules:
Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
Exodus 21:26-27 (NASB): 26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.

1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): 1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
 
BipolarFan said:
Beating slaves was perfectly allowable under the following rules:
Exodus 21:20-21 (NASB): 20If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. 21If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
Exodus 21:26-27 (NASB): 26If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. 27And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.

1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): 1All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. 2Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
Click to expand...

Do you know what slaves this might be? If not I will tell you. When this was written the Jews had just left the bondage of slavery themselves via the Egyptians. It isn't likely they owned any slaves at this time so obviously it was a lesson that was adopted from the Egyptian methodology to correct how to administer punishment for violations of the arrangement.

The accepted writer of Exodus was in fact essentially ostracized from the nation of Egypt years before for killing someone for mistreating slaves of his brotherhood so it seems reasonable he wouldn't advocate mistreating any slave. Slavery however was part of the cultures of that part of the world and one could become a slave by several methods. One of which was an indentured servitude aka a slave as a result of a mutual arrangement. This is the likely system the writer was referencing and it addresses a system whereby the master could administer punishment if there were violations to a slaves servitude. By the same token it address what would happen to the master if there was excessive punishment.

It was a completely different system of slavery the Jews had just experienced at the hands of the Egyptians.

This is is in no way an endorsement for anyone to take charge of another's life as a commodity as has been done throughout the history of mankind and by races and nations throughout time and geography.
 
Bipo, context is important. You have to realize that a few things about the quoted scriptures.

First, the old testament was largely a chronicle of runaway laws that were put into place by the religious people. It wasn't necessarily a command or approval by God. It's almost like taking the words of the idiots that approved of slavery in this country hundreds of years from now and making a case against Christianity. It just doesn't jive.

Secondly, the definition of slavery is much different than now. For instance, agreements with people were made with your life. For example; if you took a loan out and couldn't pay it you would offer up yourself as labor for a number of years or until it was paid. Agreements were called covenants then. You were expected to follow through with your words.

Also, if you were poor and unable to provide for yourself or protect yourself from pirates you gave your labor or time to the greater good. Pretty much like socialism. The poor attached themselves to the government in order to be provided for. They were free to go and weren't supposed to be mistreated.

Here is some excellent reading material on the topic.

http://www.comereason.org/slavery-in-the-bible.asp
 
Last edited:
A lot of atheist cherry picking that works is in response to Christian cherry picking. I.E. If you're preaching against homosexuality from the book of Leviticus, than you're a hypocrite if you fail to follow any other of the book's extremely restrictive and frankly ridiculous limitations.

But this fly by "Bible loves rape and slavery 'cause this one verse I found" is just the same kind of imbecilic as the man selectively preaching. It's a poor grasp of the reading material, and a sophomoric attempt the wag your ass without doing any meaningful research.
 
Last edited:
townsend said:
A lot of atheist cherry picking that works is in response to Christian cherry picking. I.E. If your preaching against homosexuality from the book of Leviticus, than you're a hypocrite if you fail to follow any other of the book's extremely restrictive and frankly ridiculous limitations.

But this fly by "Bible loves rape and slavery 'cause this one verse I found" is just the same kind of imbecilic as the man selectively preaching. It's a poor grasp of the reading material, and a sophomoric attempt the wag your ass without doing any meaningful research.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel about it. Skid and I have had lengthy discussions about religion, but both of us (at least in my estimation) come at it with well thought out stances. We generally don't agree, but I feel like we at least have intelligent conversation about it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom