Christianity and our Nation.

Telling someone to treat their slave fairly does not promote slavery, anymore than telling someone to turn the other cheek goes to promote violence. The laws are there to lead people out of their mindset, so that they learn to become better people.

 

The ONLY possible way to treat a slave fairly is to given them their freedom.

 

The only way to "treat a slave fairly" is TO HAVE A SLAVE TO BEGIN WITH.
How are you missing this point?

Slavery is wrong. It is a moral abomination.

And yet here is the Bible telling us that as long as your slave doesn't die after beating them then everything is good because the slave is your PROPERTY.

Meanwhile far right Christians try to defend this passage while also trying to tell us that the REAL "abomination" is a man that loves another man.

 

Would you rather that slaves everywhere be treated unfairly? To end slavery, you must first see them as fellow men. To see them as fellow men, you begin by treating them fairly. And in the end, both the slaves and the owners are freed from the practice. As for sexual deviancy, it is an offense to conscience rather than a matter of religion. So like all immoral things, it is shunned to protect the virtue of children, whose very lives come from the union/marriage of a Father and a Mother.

 

Holy Toledo
I'd rather THERE BE NO SLAVES
No, to see someone as a fellow man is axiomatic. ALL humans deserve to be treated fairly. You don't treat people fairly AFTER you see them as a fellow man. You start by seeing them as a fellow human and then treat them fairly.

And treating them fairly includes not worrying about who they sleep with. There is NOTHING inherently wrong with sleeping with someone of the same sex. As long as everyone is a consenting adult it really is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You should treat people who love someone of the same sex exactly the same way you would treat someone of the opposite sex. This includes allowing them to display affection the same way heterosexual couples are allowed to display affection. They have the exact same rights as any heterosexual couple and should be treated that way. It is not immoral.

 

That's the goal of the law, which ideally is to free or decouple both the slave and the slave owner from the spirit of the practice, and bring about equity. Think what you will, but from my perspective, if the law came from God, then I have no doubt that it was appropriate to the circumstance, heart, and mindset of the people. It is folly to fault a perfect God or to say there is no perfect God when all that men do in righteousness is to that end of perfection. One doesn't believe in God because one is perfect but because one is not, and God is. Otherwise we are under perpetual condemnation, and even the good we do is evil. Nevertheless as the Apostle Paul said in Ephesians2, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." In the meantime, God extends his mercy towards us, rather than to fall upon us in our mischief and find us greatly wanting. He is not about our condemnation, but our salvation, as we all stand condemned. Who can proclaim themselves holy?

 

It is folly to think that ANYTHING comes from a God. To rely upon an unproven (and even unevidenced) being to mete out rules for living is folly. Every law we have, every law we have EVER had was 100% man made. There has never been any sign of "divine revelation" in the creation of our laws. It is easily seen by the fact that as humanity has moralistically and philosophically our laws have progressed as well. Slavery has been abolished, woman are legally equal, LGBTQ people are now legally equal (socially is a different story and something that needs to be worked on)

Our laws have progressed because of HUMAN reason...not make believe god dictates.

 

It most certainly is. There are XX chromosomes and XY. Pay attention to the science. If you want to look at the "spiritual aspect" (which you often feign to do) "In the beginning He created them Male and female".

Many so called Christian Churches encourage gay relationships. Wonder where they get their frame of reference? Apparently they have thrown out the Scriptures!

You love to talk about Jesus, yet you deny who he claims to be. Remember the women Jesus saved caught in the act of adultery? Religious folks wanted to stone her to death. What did Jesus say?" Your sins are forgiven. Go and sin no more." You and others calling for the removal of God, always conveniently forget that last part.

 

What you strive to believe is that law is based on a flawed human nature. That is subject to change at the whims of the "culture".Who knows, we may see a return of cannibalism and open pedophelia someday. God our Creator showed our Founders that His Laws are consistent and never changing. Sure, mankind trifles with them, but there is always a remnant that returns to the base Truth. You may feel our culture is enlightened, but the idea that everyone has their own truth and can identify any way they feel forcing others to accept that, shows the flaw in your thinking. The tail wags the dog.

 

You describe it perfectly. Our laws ARE subject to change. That is the proof that they are not divinely inspired. If our laws came from a God then slavery would still be legal.

Humanity is a story of progress. Religion is a story of stagnation. It is as you say, those that believe in a God believe that "His Laws" are consistent and never changing. That is hogwash.

In a barbaric time we had barbaric laws. We have progressed beyond barbarism and now our laws reflect an enlightened society. Are we perfect? No. Will we ever be "perfect"? Probably not. But we sure as hell are a LOT better off than when our laws called for humans to be owned as property. We are better off when our laws called for homosexuals to be jailed.

Alan Turing was probably the biggest hero of WWII. It was his work in computers and crypto analysis that allowed the Allies to crack the "Enigma Code" of Nazi Germany. He is probably the most important individual in the defeat of Hitler. What was his "reward"? In 1952 he was prosecuted for homosexual acts. That's it. He was convicted of "Gross Indecency" for homosexual acts with consenting adults in the privacy of his own home. THOSE laws are from your "God". A genius, a man who helped defeat Nazi Germany was convicted and humiliated to the point of suicide at 41. THIS was the result of the belief that "His Laws are consistent and never changing"

Screw that.

 

Maybe to your definition of "Christian". The Apostle Paul wrote a lengthy letter to the "Romans" in whish he discussed "unnatural acts" and he briefly spelled them out so there is no way you can "dance around it". So if you want to throw out the Scriptures that defines what lovers of God must attempt to adhere to, then call yourself "Christian", then so be it.

Please describe for me the condition that would be applicable when a baby is about to exit the womb, with everything but his head has exited then his skull invaded and his brains sucked out? Are you implying this procedure is a fairy tale? Do you deny there are those that think killing babies inside the womb and even at exit is an expression of their independence and personal freedom? Both doctors and women who boast of their abortions are evidence of this. The innocent are left defenceless under the rule of these ogres!

 

Again, you follow the tradition of accusing God and the precepts He has laid down for our own good, with how mankind perverts and adds to them for control. God started out with ten laws. The religious folks added to them coming up with over 600. Today we have thousands of laws and a populous that has no intention in obeying all of them. Jesus made it easy. He summed up the original 10 in 2. "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. The second is just as important, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." The previous 10 hinges on those two. It is self explanatory.

God does not call us to discriminate or persecute homosexual activity. He sees those involved in the behavior as lost souls for which He provided a path to redemption.(like us all) However, He resists those who "glorify" the behavior. Is that what you attempt to do? "God gives Grace to the Humble but resists the proud".

 

Really, so the death penalty for homosexuality isn't persecution? (Leviticus 20:13 ‘If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them.)

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are referred to as "The Books of Law". Are you saying that, aside from the 10 Commandments, all those other laws are made up by the religious folk with no input from God?

 

I don't think you believe anything you said.

 

Suit yourself. I've told you the truth, and I think you know it. In the end, lies beget nothing but sorrow.

 

I'll put it this way....God used the Jewish Nation as an example to all Nations to display His precepts. They were given various laws (such as the washing of hands) for their own prosperity. Laws for illicit behavior were also given. This was done as an example to the futility of trying to live a Holy life under the Law. Purging sin from the culture was often accomplished by death. All cultures were given repeated notices of their pending doom if they did not turn from such behavior. It did not work. It is apparent that sin is deeply embedded in human nature and we must be aware of our condition. Understanding that only a change of heart and a regeneration of spirit will ever be able to accomplish that. A new dispensation was in store.
Jesus demonstrated that for us in sparing the women caught in the act of adultery which also was punishable by death. He told her "Your sins are forgiven, go and sin no more." He beckoned her to have a change in heart.....her choice. All Christians can do is the same. God has shown the Way! So do you still have an ax to grind here?
When you grind that ax it shows your pride and independence from God.

 

Great, so now you think you know better what I believe than I do?

 

You haven't told me "the truth"

You've told me what you've been convinced is "the truth" but are completely unwilling to consider any other possibility.

There is the difference between us.

I am willing to entertain the possibility I am wrong. I welcome any discussion that is counter to my views. I will consider any evidence presented.

An intelligent man can read a hundred books and still realize he has more to learn. A religious zealot will read one and be convinced he knows "the truth"

 

Thank you.
I wear my "independence from God" as a badge of honor.

 

Your pride tells you you can do it in this life......but I would be concerned about the next one.

 

PROVE there is a "next one" then I'll start being concerned.

Until then it is the same thing as telling me I need to be concerned about Astrology or Santa Claus.

 

Riiiiight, because you know more about what America was founded on than our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, who lived and worked with the Founders and was present at and participated in the founding of this country.

I presume that one of the keenest minds in the history of American governance would have gotten a chuckle out of this, too:

Are they now, and whose enlightenment philosophy are our laws supposedly based on? Frederick the Great? Thomas Reid?? Jean-Jacques Rousseau???

Nothing about English common law, Catholic canon law, Anglo-Saxon law and Roman civil law? Nothing about the in-depth studies of Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis and Gratian's Concordia discordantium canonum at the University of Bologna in the 12th Century that led to the development of our laws and rights doctrines? Nothing about Huguccio haranguing his students about the different meanings of the term ius?

Funny, about a year and a half ago while was serving on a grand jury, the presiding judge decided to give everyone a little History lesson and he informed us that we were there that day on account of thing called Magna Carta, which King John of England was forced to sign in 1215. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the 13th Century preceded the Enlightenment Era by several centuries.

Then, of course, there's this:

“The fundamental basis of this Nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul.”
—Harry S. Truman, Address Before the Attorney General’s Conference on Law Enforcement Problems, February 15, 1950

Of course, this is only partially true. The fundamental basis of our laws comes from a variety of sources.

As for the Enlightenment, one would think that the ideas that inspired and animated it magically sprang out of the either during the 16th and 17th centuries, which is about as ahistorical and shortsighted as the notion that our laws are based solely on some Enlightenment philosophy that had also magically divorced itself from the origins and evolution of Western Civilization. That did not happen here in the United States (thankfully), although one might argue that it did happen in France where its revolution was based on the outdated screwball theories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Gabriel Bonnot de Mably and others, which resulted in the buffoonery of Hébert & Co.'s Cult of Reason and Robespierre's Cult of the Supreme Being, the bloodbath of the Reign of Terror and the first genocide of the Modern Era in the Vendée, and ultimately Bonaparte's dictatorship which ended with France's defeat at the hands of the Sixth and Seventh Coalitions.

Obviously, Harry Truman and many others disagree with you. Thou shalt not kill, thou shall not steal - where did that come from?

I honestly don't know if Moses made up the story about what happened on the Mount, but the fact remains that the laws he promulgated became part of Western religious and secular law, and the ideas Jesus promoted influenced the development of the Western Law, Individualism, Liberalism (in the classical sense) that form the foundation of our country.

Again, this isn't to say that the United States was ever a theocracy and/or ever should be a theocracy. It is just acknowledging the role and contributions of religion in the formation and life of our country.

Of course, we use our faculty of Reason to make and change our laws and expand the protection of our rights.

I would agree that scripture or "revelation" is pretty static, but there's more than scripture and revelation to consider here - there's the matter of people's beliefs, interpretations and attitudes, as well as those of their churches, and their context within the times people live in. For example, there was a time when Western Christians and their churches believed it was okay to imprison, torture and execute heretics, but they no longer find that acceptable on a moral and intellectual level. Has scripture/revelation changed? No, but people have.

Agreed. Nothing I've pointed out or argued discounts or diminishes the role and importance of Reason.

 

Many laws may AGREE with Biblical laws, that does not mean they came from them.

I can reason out a rule against murder without invoking a God.

In fact, if you depend on a God to tell you murder is wrong, then by all means continue to believe....PLEASE


And your point about no longer imprisoning, torturing or executing heretics is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. Proof that our laws are not dependent on some scripture.

 

Yeah, they don't think about that. It's all about now and self flattery.

 

Chromosome type and count do not fully govern sexual orientation.

The churches you refer to aren't encouraging gay relations. They are supporting of people of all orientations.

The story you relate was not about sexual orientation.

More importantly, you forget that Jesus admonished those who would be judges while encouraging the individual to choose not to sin. I pointed that out in another post to you - God/Jesus was interested in humans being judges of themselves.

Mankind are forbidden to eat of the tree of knowledge of god and evil - that is for God alone, not man.

The woman sinned, but Jesus was not interested in the others being judges. Jesus did NOT approve of people executing those who are considered by mankind to have sinned in some way.

I don't call for the removal of god. I don't try to invalidate your religion.

But, we are a religiously plural society and have a secular government. In the history of western government, welding religion and government has proven to be a bad idea.