Q and A about what it means to follow Christ

"
MrSmiley21 wrote:
Are pants optional to follow Christ?


Templar sure thinks so. And are you going to argue with him?
Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof
If I were to begin a study of whether or not the Bible is God's word or man's, I'd consider:

* Prophesy (possibly the single most convincing factor for me, because we're not talking vague nostradamus stuff... while going through History class in school, parts were like a "how Bible prophesy was fulfilled" class. Sometimes hundreds of years in advance we have countries named in conflicts and who would win, a ruler by name 200 years before he was born and what he would do, *hundreds* of prophesies about the messiah written hundreds of years before Jesus' birth - many beyond the control of Jesus or those around him, and even prophesies being fulfilled in our day.)
* Candor of the writers. (revealing personal flaws and mistakes that most would try their best to hide or at least try show themselves in a better light.)
* Historical Accuracy. (dates, locations, people, events)
* Scientific Accuracy. (there are many more topics that are much less controversial than the days of creation)
* Results of applying principles. (practical application and modern day results)
* Survival to our day despite all opposition; and current availability to the population.
* Internal harmony. (Among other things, there is one message throughout the whole Bible from the fall of mankind and the start of our problems to the eventual restoration to paradise in the future by means of God's Kingdom. All this, despite being written by 40 different people across 1600 years.)

You may have preconceived notions about what you think you know of each of those points right now, perhaps based on personal research or what you've heard from others. There is a lot to consider. When you put it all together, and consider the evidence I have seen, I have found there to be an overwhelming amount in support of divine inspiration; enough for me to believe.



Spoiler

On the purchase of the field
The chief priests were made up of many Pharisees who were lawyers to an extreme. They tried finding loopholes in everything.

According to Matthew 27:6, 7, the chief priests decided they could not put the money in the sacred treasury so they used it to buy the field. The account in Acts 1:18, 19, speaking about Judas, says: “This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness.” The answer seems to be that the priests purchased the field, but since Judas provided the money, it could be credited to him. Dr. A. Edersheim pointed out: “It was not lawful to take into the Temple-treasury, for the purchase of sacred things, money that had been unlawfully gained. In such cases the Jewish Law provided that the money was to be restored to the donor, and, if he insisted on giving it, that he should be induced to spend it for something for the public weal [well-being]. . . . By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas’, and to have been applied by him in the purchase of the well-known ‘potter’s field.’” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1906, Vol. II, p. 575)

So, by technicality of law, the Jewish leaders were able to attribute the purchase of the field to Judas, and not to themselves, to avoid breaking the law.



Spoiler

On Slavery
Israelite slavery was far FAR from that found in other countries or the history of the United States. The Israelite people were subjected to harsh slavery in Egypt, and this is made reference to in many parts of the Mosaic Law as a contrast to what the Israelites should do with their slaves. Israelite slavery in some cases was such a good arrangement for some slaves, that there was an option for a slave who loved his/her "master" to make it permanent.

One reference work made these points:
Consider the following regulations included in the Law given through Moses:

● Kidnapping a man and then selling him was punishable by death. (Exodus 21:16) However, if despite all the provisions made to prevent poverty, an Israelite found himself deeply in debt, perhaps as a result of poor management, he could sell himself as a slave. In some cases he might even be able to earn a surplus by which he could redeem himself.—Leviticus 25:47-52.

● This was not the oppressive kind of slavery that has been common in many lands through the ages. Leviticus 25:39, 40 says: “In case your brother grows poor alongside you and he has to sell himself to you, you must not use him as a worker in slavish service. He should prove to be with you like a hired laborer, like a settler.” So this was a loving provision to care for Israel’s poorest.

● A person found guilty of stealing who was unable to make full restitution according to the Law could be sold as a slave and in this way pay off his debt. (Exodus 22:3) When he had worked off the debt, he could go free.

● Cruel and abusive slavery was not allowed under God’s Law to Israel. While masters were allowed to discipline their slaves, excesses were forbidden. A slave killed by his master was to be avenged. (Exodus 21:20) If the slave was maimed, losing a tooth or an eye, he was set free.—Exodus 21:26, 27.

● The maximum time that any Israelite would have to serve as a slave was six years. (Exodus 21:2) Hebrew slaves were set free in the seventh year of their service. The Law demanded that every 50 years all Israelite slaves were to be set free nationwide, regardless of how long the individual had been a slave.—Leviticus 25:40, 41.

● When a slave was released, the master was required to be generous toward him. Deuteronomy 15:13, 14 says: “In case you should send him out from you as one set free, you must not send him out empty-handed. You should surely equip him with something from your flock and your threshing floor and your oil and winepress.”

Spoiler
On a side note here, the Mosaic Law (including laws about slavery) is no longer in force for God's people. It is not because God has changed his mind, but it was a temporary arrangement to guide people to the Christ and provide a code of laws for the nation that represented His sovereignty on earth. (Col 2:13,14; Rom 10:4; Rom 7:6; Eph 2:15; Gal 3:23-25; Heb 10:1-10) The law showed how much we needed the ransom that Jesus provided, and showed the legal precedent for God's accepting the value of the sacrifice of Jesus' perfect life to offset the death sentence on mankind due to the sin of the once-perfect man Adam. Jesus' sacrifice fulfilled the mosaic law's purpose.

"
Zaludoz wrote:
If I were to begin a study of whether or not the Bible is God's word or man's, I'd consider:

* Prophesy (possibly the single most convincing factor for me, because we're not talking vague nostradamus stuff... while going through History class in school, parts were like a "how Bible prophesy was fulfilled" class. Sometimes hundreds of years in advance we have countries named in conflicts and who would win, a ruler by name 200 years before he was born and what he would do, *hundreds* of prophesies about the messiah written hundreds of years before Jesus' birth - many beyond the control of Jesus or those around him, and even prophesies being fulfilled in our day.)
* Candor of the writers. (revealing personal flaws and mistakes that most would try their best to hide or at least try show themselves in a better light.)
* Historical Accuracy. (dates, locations, people, events)
* Scientific Accuracy. (there are many more topics that are much less controversial than the days of creation)
* Results of applying principles. (practical application and modern day results)
* Survival to our day despite all opposition; and current availability to the population.
* Internal harmony. (Among other things, there is one message throughout the whole Bible from the fall of mankind and the start of our problems to the eventual restoration to paradise in the future by means of God's Kingdom. All this, despite being written by 40 different people across 1600 years.)

You may have preconceived notions about what you think you know of each of those points right now, perhaps based on personal research or what you've heard from others.


This is correct. I do have notions on many of these points. Scientific accuracy is a big one - Noah's Ark is clearly not meant as a metaphor, but no matter what scientific discipline you come at it from, the story doesn't work - but even leaving aside my quibbles, and leaving aside that one thing being wrong kind of detonates the entire construct... I'm not sure how you get from point A (the bible contains remarkably accurate scientific, historical, and predictive knowledge, all of which I doubt) to point B (therefore we can tell that it was written by the specific God described therein). I feel like there are a few steps missing there, two of the main ones being:

A) How do we establish that a supernatural cause is responsible for this?
B) How do we establish which supernatural cause is responsible for this?

"
On Slavery
Israelite slavery was far FAR from that found in other countries or the history of the United States. The Israelite people were subjected to harsh slavery in Egypt, and this is made reference to in many parts of the Mosaic Law as a contrast to what the Israelites should do with their slaves. Israelite slavery in some cases was such a good arrangement for some slaves, that there was an option for a slave who loved his/her "master" to make it permanent.


No.

Stop.

Is it moral for one human being to own another human being as property?

This is not a hard question.

And yet, that is clearly how it is described in the bible. You can argue that it is friendly, happy, nice, kind slavery, but the fact is that we are still referring to a system in which one man is a person, and one man is property. Note I said "man", because women were just generally considered property, and were subject to different (disgusting, rapey) rules.

Meanwhile, the bible contrasts its friendly and light treatment of hebrew slaves with how to purchase property that you can bequeath unto your sons and whose children continue to be your property. From Leviticus 25:

"
As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.


And yes, that's directly after the part where it speaks about israelite indentured servitude. What the perfect moral center of your religion explicitly legislated for his chosen people was chattel slave trade.
Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof
"
No.

Stop.

Is it moral for one human being to own another human being as property?

This is not a hard question.


Actually, it is a hard question. Questions of moral relativity aside (though that is a very valid topic to argue on as well), strong arguments can be made that slavery was (or at least was perceived as) merciful in many ancient societies.

We have to remember that they didn't have the same kind of legal or political entities and systems that we did today. What do you do if, say, you are a city-state or geographically small political entity (which is valid for large parts of the historical time period contained within the bible, for the area primarily covered by the bible). You conquer (or are conquered) by a rival entity. What do you do with the POWs?

You don't have prisons to hold them in. You don't have a political apparatus to assimilate them. You don't have a standing professional army to occupy them, or a large, professional and exportable police force to suppress them.

Well, one option is to massacre them. Sounds bad (is bad), but this IS the ancient world we're talking about, and it's not like it's particularly uncommon. In fact, in the bible itself, the Hebrews repeatedly slaughter entire cities that they have taken (say, the famous Jericho after the walls fell, for one -- they killed every last man, woman, and child, save a single prostitute) -- at the behest of god, no less. Or you can enslave them. Yes, slavery is bad. But is it as bad as wholesale genocide? And once all (or at least most) of the able-bodied young men are dead or removed, what then? Leave the women and children and old people to starve and/or be raided by bandits until they die?

Or, say, you have a criminal or debtor. Prisons in the modern sense (or more accurately, the penitentiary system) didn't evolve until very modern times (probably the 1800s, though this can be -- and is -- argued). Even the preceding system of debtors prisons and correction houses are thoroughly modern compared to biblical times. Given the choice between executing someone (or for that matter, cutting off a hand or some other severe corporal punishment), or enslaving them, which is the more moral (or rather, less unmoral) choice?

Maybe slavery really is worse. Maybe not. But the point is that, when you're talking about cultures thousands of years (and thousands of miles) removed, even something like the moral implications of slavery are anything but simple.

It's also worth pointing out that, while the Old Testament is a part of the Christian bible, many of the rules and regulations within it applied specifically to the Hebrews, and not the later Christians, and it's important not to conflate the two. Granted, they did have their own prescriptions (and proscriptions) regarding slavery, and it's not all kittens and bunnies. But the New Testament does take a considerably softer view on slavery (it can be summed up as a kind of "it's allowed, but it isn't really all that great" as opposed to the Old Testament's "perfectly fine, as long as they aren't one of us" -- though this is, of course, a gross oversimplification of a complex topic).
IGN Stuns_McNutshot | Ichimans_McIchimans | Balls_McCritterson
Last edited by tsftd on Mar 9, 2017, 7:35:29 AM
"
tsftd wrote:
snip


These are a bunch of interesting caveats that would be worthy of consideration and discussion... if we weren't speaking about law set down by the omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. If God can say, "don't wear different kinds of fabric" or "if you pick up sticks on the sabbath, you will be put to death" or "don't be gay", he can probably work something out that's better than chattel slavery. For example, using that aforementioned indentured servitude as a way to assimilate POWs into society. That took me all of two minutes to come up with, and I'm only a little omniscient.
Luna's Blackguards - a guild of bronies - is now recruiting! If you're a fan of our favourite chromatic marshmallow equines, hit me up with an add or whisper, and I'll invite you!
IGN: HopeYouAreFireProof
Ok, still on slavery:

By the time the Bible began to be written, humans had already established social structures and economic systems that conflicted with godly principles. While some of the practices involved were condemned in his written Law, God chose to tolerate others, such as slavery.

Regarding the social structure of the ancient nation of Israel, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states: “It was meant to function as a brotherhood in which, ideally, there were no poor [and there was] no exploitation of widows, waifs, or orphans.” Hence, more than simply allowing an already established social and economic structure, God’s Law regulated slavery so that, if practiced, slaves would be treated in a humane and loving manner.

There is a difference here between God condoning or advocating slavery, and regulating the practice. God doesn't condone or approve of polygamy, but the mosaic law regulated it (marriage was established by God as joining one man and one woman, and later, Jesus confirmed that God had not changed the standard. God does not approve of divorce either, but allowed Moses to make concessions in the law to their hard-heartedness. (Matt 19:3-9)

God originally established Israel as a theocracy, with no human kings, just a priesthood. The people demanded a king, so God set up the regulations that would guide a kingdom ruled by man (along with stiff warnings of what was to come - Are you sure want it? Be careful what you wish for, essentially. (1 Sam 8:5-22; 1Sam 12:12; Deut 17:14-20))

The law made sure that slavery was handled in the most tolerable form possible under His kingdom. Later, under Roman society, since Jesus did not teach social revolution, it was inevitable that eventually some of both slaves and masters in that society would become his followers. Again, principles were stated that helped Christians living in that society who were either slaves or masters. (Col 4:1; Eph 6:5-9)

There are an abundance of scriptures stating how God wants people to treat each other in a fair, loving and kind way; a brotherhood of humankind with nobody dominating another. God doesn't approve of slavery. There are prophesies talking about the elimination of all slavery.
"
"
tsftd wrote:
snip


These are a bunch of interesting caveats that would be worthy of consideration and discussion... if we weren't speaking about law set down by the omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. If God can say, "don't wear different kinds of fabric" or "if you pick up sticks on the sabbath, you will be put to death" or "don't be gay", he can probably work something out that's better than chattel slavery. For example, using that aforementioned indentured servitude as a way to assimilate POWs into society. That took me all of two minutes to come up with, and I'm only a little omniscient.


At first glance, it may seem that God should have simply set up an ideal society... However, if you look at the way that it happened, he didn't. Not only the generational difference between the Hebrew and Christians (and later, the Muslims), but even through time within the Old Testament, there are examples of how rules are only introduced *as they could be implemented*.

The difference between restrictions within a group regarding what they can wear or do, which do not apply to or impact people outside that group (except, I suppose, fabric merchants?), and a major societal policy with the ability to destabilize regional neighbors, is pretty huge. Had God directed the Hebrews (or the Christians) to get rid of slavery, it would have put them at risk of reprisals from their neighbors (see: Europe's reaction to the French Revolution). Look at, for instance, the Hebrew (and Christian) restrictions on diet. Not only did they (probably) improve the health of the affected groups, but they actually lowered food prices for those outside the group, as the demand, and therefore price, of the affected items dropped.

And there's the question of acceptability to the group that are being expected to follow the rules. It's a common maxim in the military never to give an order that you know won't be followed. I would assume that the same applies to deities (or at least ones that want to keep their followers). Zaludoz has some examples of this in his post.

As for other methods of assimilating people, it simply didn't work at that time -- the socio-economic structures and functions wouldn't arise for centuries (heck, arguably they still aren't around in that area of the world). For instance, the Hebrews were enslaved in Egypt for between 215 and 430 years, and didn't assimilate. If someone conquers your homeland and puts you in indentured servitude for 7 years, I doubt that you'll emerge supporting the status quo.

Again, I'm not stating whether a particular position is good or bad, right or wrong -- just pointing out that things are not as simple as they may appear to us today. We have a lot of experience and baggage built up over the millenia, and the bible was written first and foremost to apply to people of the day, not us. This, incidentally, is also an explanation for why certain things which were not issues in that day (drug abuse, computers, environmentalism, etc) are not covered.

Note: I'm not Christian -- an atheist, in fact, but I studied the history of the region (and religions of the region) for 6 years in university, and it is an incredibly complicated and complex issue.
IGN Stuns_McNutshot | Ichimans_McIchimans | Balls_McCritterson
Last edited by tsftd on Mar 9, 2017, 4:43:00 PM
"
Head_Less wrote:
There is no proof jesus ever existed. Flavius josephus was -6year old (born 6 years after jesus birth) when jesus "died".

First writings about him are all decades after his "death".
This is Paul creation and Christianism should be called Paultianism Imo.

About the cult itself, I like the message that poverty is better than being a greedy fuck.

My question: When God killed all the newborn of egypt, murdering poor little infants by thousands, don t you think it was a little cruel for those innocent egyptians families who were not really responsible for the pharao actions? How does a christian cope with the fact their god can be cruel at time?




You really are totally clueless, headless. :)

Not going to spoil any beans. Too much fun to let you all wonder around in the dark.

Going to read all the other comments though for some comedy gold.

EDIT: Morbo spoiled the beans anyway. Some really nice contributions in the later posts.

"
morbo wrote:

"Following Christ" is simply following the New testament. Most Christians don't bother themselves with old testament trivia and other legacy silliness. That's more a Jewish thing. I'm not religious, but still hate it when (usually atheists) immediately jump to the "flat earth" assumptions about religious people.


Read at your own risk cuz your brains might melt.

Spoiler

Judaism = Old Testament = Materialism = Believe in one material god or architect.
Christianity = New Testament = Reaction to Judaism = Anyone can be god. Christ just shows the way.
Funny how that got muddled up through the centuries.
In the end it is just a way of living. And plz dont take the bible too literal kids.

Heart of Purity

Awarded 'Silverblade' to Talent Competition Winner 2020.
My collection might be smaller than others but at least I played the game fair and square.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDFO4E5OKSE
Last edited by Reinhart on Mar 15, 2017, 4:34:48 PM
The search for the God particle: when modern science became a "fanatical religion" on it's own.



Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. It's exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.

Nikola Tesla

Heart of Purity

Awarded 'Silverblade' to Talent Competition Winner 2020.
My collection might be smaller than others but at least I played the game fair and square.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDFO4E5OKSE
Last edited by Reinhart on Mar 25, 2017, 1:34:17 AM
Why should I believe in God?

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info