Why are so many christians so concerned with sexual matters?

Jump to Last Post 51-61 of 61 discussions (2261 posts)
  1. profile image0
    SirDentposted 4 years ago

    The last few days I have been reading what is going on in this thread.  It is hard for me to believe that not one single person bothered to look up the original Hebrew word that the NIV translates as slave.

    The KJV does not use the word slave that Rad had shown the NIV to do.  The KJV uses the words servant, handmaiden, etc. .  but not slave.

    Let's look at what a servant does.  A servant is to work for the one who hired him or her to work.  it is like a contract, if I am hired to do a job, I need to do the job.  But do not take my word for it, let's look at a scripture that Rad posted earlier.

    Exo 21:20  And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

    The word servant is used.  Because many do not trust Strong;s concordance, I will use the Brown Driver Briggs definition of the original word. 

    H5650
    עבד
    ‛ebed
    BDB Definition:
    1) slave, servant
    1a) slave, servant, man-servant
    1b) subjects
    1c) servants, worshippers (of God)
    1d) servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc)
    1e) servant (of Israel)
    1f) servant (as form of address between equals)
    Part of Speech: noun masculine

    Now, the Hebrew word for maid.

    H519
    אמה
    'âmâh
    BDB Definition:
    1) maid-servant, female slave, maid, handmaid, concubine
    1a) of humility (figuratively)
    Part of Speech: noun feminine
    A Related Word by BDB/Strong’s Number: apparently a primitive word
    Same Word by TWOT Number: 112

    As you can see, those words have different definitions.  Everyone wants to use only one definition which may not even be close. 

    A person who is bound to a task is an employee.  A person hired by a company is hired for a specific task to do.  A maid is hired to be a maid, a butler hired to be a butler.  They are not slaves but employees.

    There will be no charge for this bible lesson.  Freely it is given and freely it will be given.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for sharing that Sir Dent. I can think of some that might have shared something like that....  Anyway, I am glad you did.  It really hadn't occurred to me, but it should have.

      If the people that were slaves to Abraham were to be "let free", where would they go and get a job?  The job at the local Nile pub or supermarket had also better be able to pay for their food, shelter, and protection from enemies or marauders, clothing, etc.  Those things came to the slaves very often as part of their service.  These things don't seem to matter to all engaged in the conversation, yet it makes all the difference in the world.  Thus, why I say this seems to be about upholding their held beliefs about others, over what is true, factual, reasonable, fair, etc. 

      Main point being, were there local jobs where people could work FOR someone for a wage that would provide the exact same things they would use the earned money on?.  In all of the texts, we don't see much in the way of such jobs, not in Abraham's day for sure.  If you were to tie up Abraham and his family, and said, "run slaves, while you can!"  What do you want to bet they would look at you like you were crazy, and say, "Where to, and why?  Are you insane?"  It seems a struggle of dealing with the reality of history of slavery to me. 

      I can only trust that more like you have been watching and paying attention, in case they ever get into conversations with those that believe in such ways about others.  Its only true if its true.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        You do realize you just said that the slaves were better off being slaves? That they didn't really want to be free. That there were no paying jobs so being slaves and not being paid was better than being free and not being paid.

        All these arguments have been used by various societies (US included) that kept slaves.

        Amazingly, when there are no more slaves, paying jobs start popping up pretty quickly. Check your history books.

        1. Jerami profile image68
          Jeramiposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Just a spur of the moment thought ....  In today's world here in the 21st century here in the USA, it is common practice to sell ourselves into a type of slavery for money, for an agreed period of time. Whether that be an hourly or weekly wage, or yearly contract. Conditions in the work place and how we are to be treated have been privately negotiated and or legally mandated. 

          In many instances, in the past, some people sold themselves into slavery which was their right to do. Some fathers sold their children into it.

          When kingdoms fought war against other kingdoms and the looser often surrendered unconditionally.
          It was common practice 2000 years ago for the victors to kill off any groups that might regroup and bring the war back to life, OR the victors thought it to be more humane to take take those people who might later cause trouble into perpetual slavery keeping them segregated through out the land
          (in the name of keeping the peace).

          Over the past few thousand years, laws concerning how slaves (by any other name most of us are slaves)) have evolved into that which we currently operate under.
                Everyone in America has the right to escape minimum wage slavery, and some do, but the vast majority never get the chance. 
               So when we talk bad about laws as written in scripture concerning How To Treat our Slaves, remember, before those, .... there weren't any.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
            EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, that is called "employment", it is not slavery or even a type of slavery. Try being honest about this.

            1. Jerami profile image68
              Jeramiposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              And exactly how do you suppose these slaves became slaves.
              I believe the most common way to become a slave back in the days of old, was to owe a debt that you could not pay. You became the slave to the person to whom you owed the debt. It he did not need your services he could sell this debt to another and you would become that persons slave.

              All slave owners were not abusive nor did they all take full advantage the situation the slave found themselves in.  Thanks to bankruptcy laws our definition of slavery has been modified from that which is described in the bible. Though there were some slaves who were kidnapped and wrongfully placed into the role of a slave, this was not the rule.

              1. jonnycomelately profile image81
                jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Ok, Jerami, so how does American history of slavery sit into your theories there?  Did it conform to the "values of Jesus Christ?"   Did it conform to bacic human fairness?  Was there any freedom given to the Afro-Americans as being their basic human rights?  Was their treatment contrary to Christian teachings?  After all, they were indeed slaves, right?

                1. Jerami profile image68
                  Jeramiposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  African Americans and the Native Americans were treated as poorly as they could possibly have been. Any "REAL" Christian could not have condoned such behavior.  I don't think this kind of Slavery is what the bible was talking about.
                     IMO the type of slave described in scripture had nothing to do with indiscriminate kidnapping and forced slavery as you have mentioned. Are there any limits for the evil men commit against his fellow man?  It has always been my opinion that slavery as dictated in scripture pertained to social-economic  situations which were just as fair as is done today when a person can simply say OOPS ...  sorry ....  I can't pay you the money I owe you. I'm sorry my not paying you is going to put you in financial distress.

                  Things were different 2000 years ago.  When we could not pay our debt we either went to prison until "Somebody" redeemed us by paying that debt, or we worked the debt off by being someones slave/servant.   This seemed to be fair to the person to whom the debt was owed, and to the debtor as long as he was treated justly and fairly; and maybe not.

                       Can justice really be considered to be fair by all?  IMO, the only time justice can be seen as fair to all is when it is served with a healthy share of forgiveness and redemption. And even then someone is going to believe there wasn't enough punishment handed out. 

                  There are some questions we ask ourselves that there seems to be no correct answers for.
                  I was really only referring to the concept of slavery such as the bible was addressing and my perseption of it.

                  1. JMcFarland profile image84
                    JMcFarlandposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Your perspective of slavery is a common one by apologists,  but it's incorrect.   There are two types of slavery in the old testament.   One,  as you mentioned,  is indentured servitude,  which applied only to Jews who owed a debt.   They were kept for 7 years,  unless they were married during that time.   If they were married to a slave and wanted to stay with their wife and children (who were not set free) they had their ear pierced with a tool,  and belonged to their Masters forever.

                    Those who were captured in war,  or taken from the indigenous population were not indentured servants.   They were slaves.   They were the property of their masters and could be passed down through the family forever because they were property.

                  2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    And yet, those very folks proclaimed in no uncertain terms they were "REAL" Christians and that they were only doing what the Bible condoned.



                    Those "REAL" Christians would disagree with you.



                    Sorry, but what you're describing may have occurred in some instances, but for the vast majority of slaves, it was not like that at all.

                  3. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    You understand right that parents sold their children. Is there anything fair in that?

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Unfortunately, what you believe about slavery is just a belief, kind of like the belief in your God.

          2. Cat333 profile image75
            Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, this relates to the point I made to Rad Man - it looks as if the actual intent of the Law was to PROTECT AND GIVE RIGHTS TO the slave (or servant). Examining the Scriptures, we find that both the murderer of the free person and the murderer of the slave were to be put to death, while the one who assaulted the free person or the slave was not. The only difference was that the free person had to be compensated for lost time (as they would have worked for themselves) while the slave did not (as it was the offender himself losing that time/work). Slaves had to be compensated for significant injury - the loss of an eye or tooth - with their freedom. Because some in that day may not have even given slaves/servants these rights, the Law it seems was actually protecting and elevating them.

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Defending slavery again? If they had the money to buy the slaves they should have had the money to pay them instead of the person who sold them like cattle. The solution is very simple. People should not be owned and can come and go as they please. Any just God or person would have known that. I'm not saying your God is not just, I'm saying he wasn't involved in writing at least those parts of the bible.

        1. profile image0
          Motown2Chitownposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          " Any just God or person would have known that. I'm not saying your God is not just, I'm saying he wasn't involved in writing at least those parts of the bible."

          And here is the point that everyone defending slavery in the Bible seems to be missing.  It is not an attack on God or his justice or his mercy...it is a reasonable point being made that perhaps not every word in Scripture was written by the hand of God.  Perhaps there are contexts that came solely from the men of the time, who, while inspired by God in many instances, created laws and wrote instructions that were beneficial only to them and only in their time.  Doesn't make the Bible worthless.

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            In fairness, that appears to be a point the opposition might also be missing.

            1. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Could be.

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
            EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            True, but it could also show that not a word in Scripture was written or inspired by the hand of God. smile

            1. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              I believe inspired, yes, but not without passing through the minds of mere mortal men before being written down.  Filtered, as it were.

              1. Cat333 profile image75
                Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, as you say, the inspired Word did pass through the human, which affected it. So, for example, when a man saw a Spirit-inspired vision of a plane long, long before its invention, he had to describe it in his own limited way - a winged creature, etc.

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Which, is pretty much the same thing as coming from the minds of men. Period. smile

                What's interesting about this is that God allegedly wrote the Commandments with His own hand into stone for Moses, yet He allegedly used humans to write Scriptures, and as you say, it was "Filtered" through mortal men.

                Can you see what's wrong with that picture?

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure.  It doesn't make it all worthless, though.  Just means it will not all apply to all people at all points in time.  I wouldn't throw it out in its entirety, however, because there are parts that don't apply to me. Nor will I declare its weaknesses as devaluing it completely. smile

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    I would agree with you, almost entirely.

                    There are very few who would ever disagree there certainly aren't some gems of wisdom contained in the Bible, just like there are gems of wisdom contained in many other religions. Combined, we can take those gems and make one single set of scriptures. I would have no problem with that.

                    That said, we probably both agree there are some nasty bits contained in the Bible, things both you and I would never want to see practiced, condoned or defended. They are, for the most part, that which you have sort of labeled, "Filtered" through the minds of men. That would certainly imply that some of that which was written in the Bible comes from the minds of men, so why not everything else in the Bible?

                    We can take the Old Testament and compare it with the New Testament. We can see dramatic changes in how people behaved from one era to the next just as as we can observe changes throughout all of human history. Even within that relatively short span of time between the OT and NT, behavior changed from "an eye for an eye" to "turning the other cheek". This one thing alone show a remarkable moral and ethical evolution when compared to the tens of thousands of years preceding it. It didn't take very long for people to find out what Ghandi made clear:

                    "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

          3. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Bingo. Thanks, I must have said that 50 times, but some seem to feel I'm saying God doesn't exist. What I've been saying is that there are some scripture that wasn't written through men by any just God.

            1. Cat333 profile image75
              Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

              So your goal in twisting Scriptures (e.g., saying God instructed people on how to beat their slaves) was not to show how evil in your eyes the God of the Word / Christianity is?

          4. Cat333 profile image75
            Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            None of the words of Scripture were "written by the hand of God" but were "inspired by God". And yes, aspects of the writers' humanity entered in here and there. The way I put it is "We should neither demand that the Word read as if written by the very hand of God, as he used limited men to give us the inspired Word; nor can we dismiss any of the Word because he used men, as we know that Scriptures were inspired by God himself."   

            I think the Laws about slaves/servants were actually intended to protect them and give them rights - both the murderer of the free person and murderer of the slave were to be put to death; neither the one who assaulted but didn't kill the free person or the slave was put to death; and the only difference related to compensation for the lost work of the free person (who worked for self) versus the slave (who worked for the offender). Slaves were compensated for injury by being set free. These laws gave more rights and protection than people inclined to make slaves of people would probably otherwise have given.

            What a sad truth that humans were inclined to make and keep slaves of people and had to "learn" how vile a practice this truly is.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Protecting slaves would have sound some more like this. "Let no man keep any person as property." rather than something like this "you can beat a male or female slave with a club as long as they can get up within a day or two".

              1. Cat333 profile image75
                Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Yet God likewise did not say "Don't fight,", "Don't assault", etc. regarding the similar laws about required punishment of death when a free person died from an assault or fight, yet not when the person recovered. The only difference between the laws for the free person and the slave was that the free person was compensated for the lost work from the injury (since he worked for himself), while the slave was not (since he worked for the offender, and the offender lost the work). The slave was compensated for loss of bodily part (eye or tooth). The people who were inclined toward making slaves of people would NOT have given such equitable laws to the slave like the free person.

                We know that God is not for fighting, assaulting, beating, etc. of either the free person or the slave. Read the entirety of the Word and you will see this. But humans fight, assault, beat, etc., and so the punishments were outlined. All this takes understanding. When someone's goal is not to understand the Law or the Word in truth, but to attack, then they distort the truth with words that lack wisdom.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  And yet people said that God told them it's okay to beat a slave with a club as long as they can get up within a day or two.

                  If you think God is not for fighting, assaulting, beating, etc. why do except that this scripture is inspired or written by God?

            2. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              You and I are in agreement, Cat, about the inspired nature of scripture as your stated it here. Also, your last statement is true.  I think where Rad and those opposing him are having the issue is that his point isn't why would God allow it so much as these laws made surrounding it might not have come from God, but from the slave owners themselves...who, perhaps, believed themselves to be just men of God, but didn't reflect his justice in the practice of owning slaves.

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          I don't defend slavery.  I do observe some of is existence in a lot of our ancient history.  To the rest, ok, that seems fair.  The slavery parts aren't critical for us.

      3. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, it was very nice of SirDent to post that because it showed just how dishonest the tranlsators of the KJV were to have changed the meaning of slave to suit their agenda.



        Do you actually believe that was a concern to a slave? The only thing on the mind of a slave from the moment they wake up in the morning to the moment they go to sleep at night, is freedom.

         

        A slave could care less about anything other than being free. If others can look after themselves, certainly a freed slave could do so as well.



        No, it doesn't, it means nothing to a slave, whose only thoughts are to be free.



        And, you have not provided what is true, factual, reasonable or fair.



        No, they would be running down the road as fast as their feet could carry them, if indeed they were offered their freedom.

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      But... am I missing something other than the change from general slave to female slave?

      1) maid-servant, female slave, maid, handmaid, concubine

      Pretty sure female slave doesn't mean hired maid.... pretty sure servant doesn't mean employee either... you are kinda stretching things a bit here.

      1. profile image0
        SirDentposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Are you a slave to Jesus?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          No. I'm a follower of Jesus.

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
          EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          If he (Jesus) was divine, he knew it would be nearly 2,000 years until most of the world would realize how immoral slavery is. He also knew that slave-owners would use the Old Testament to justify the practice. One clear word from him could have prevented the misery of millions. Why did he not speak it? (And it’s hard to believe that if the Bible is inspired, God would not have inspired at least one of the four gospel-writers to record Jesus’ words on so important a topic.)

          It’s not as if there was no slavery around to speak against. Jesus often illustrated his points with stories about slaves and masters. Everybody was all too familiar with the concept, and it was as brutal as ever.

          Since Jesus never condemned slavery, we might hope that he thought of slavery in the relatively benign forms that are sometimes found in the Old Testament. Not so. When he (Jesus) spoke about the relationship of slaves and masters, he assumed that violence and abuse were the order of the day.


          http://pathofthebeagle.com/2011/10/20/w … t-slavery/

    3. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The word property was used. They wore property that was bought and sold. Do I need to show you that as well?

      Do you thing hitting anyone with a rod within an inch of their lives is acceptable?

    4. EncephaloiDead profile image55
      EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Ambiguous biblical terms used to describe slavery:

      In an apparent attempt to disguise the practice of slavery, some translations in the Bible translate the word slave (doulos in Greek) as servant. Casual readers of the Bible would assume that the passages refer to a hired servant (diakonos in Greek) - i.e. a butler or a maid. The King James Version of the Bible (KJV) frequently referred to slaves by various ambiguous terms, such as: bondmen, servants, maids, handmaid, manservant, maidservant, etc


      http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl3.htm



      A slave can be a servant, or maid, or gardener, or whatever, that does not preclude the fact they are slaves and have NOT been hired to work.

      Try being honest about this, SirDent.



      lol

      Thanks for the lesson in honesty.

      1. Cat333 profile image75
        Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        ED - You seem to have missed that Sir Dent went and looked up the actual terms in the original language. So this text you've copied about the misleading use of other terms for slavery is inaccurate.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Did you miss the scripture that says who can be bought and who was property? Trying to say that someone who was bought like cattle and was property was only a servant isn't being honest at all.

          1. Cat333 profile image75
            Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            If the actual word is translated "servant", and Sir Dent looked up the actual word, then it is inaccurate to state the translation as "servant" is misleading or intended as a deception. I never said the word couldn't mean slave and/or servant. I pointed out the inaccurate part of ED's copied post.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              So if you translate a word that has been translated already you find something in your liking, it matters not that these servants were bought and property?

              1. Cat333 profile image75
                Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                I am actually in agreement with you that these "slaves" and/or "servants" may fit more with our current understanding of "slave". Nonetheless, if the original word is translated "servant", then to translate it "servant" is NOT a deception or misleading at all. Sir Dent looked at the original word and spoke on that; ED criticized from a stance that translating the word servant as the word translates (servant) was a deception. I was not speaking of your thoughts on the word "property" and I guess we'd have to look up that original word as well to get a better understanding. Do you understand what I am saying?

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure, you are saying you need to defend the bible at all costs. If a person is bought or sold as property then they are a slave. Sure they may serve you but if they can't quite and are not paid then they are a slave.

                  1. Chris Neal profile image75
                    Chris Nealposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    No, you are the one missing the point. You've basically defined the situation as "Slavery is bad and in order to prove that you are not also bad you must condemn it wherever and whenever it was and anything or anyone who does not do so is defending it." That is both way too simplistic and also not what many of us are doing. You are the one who not only has cast the situation in utter, unrelenting black and white but also drawn a line in the sand and said, "Anything on the other side of this line is defending evil at all costs."

            2. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              No, a word was translated from an ancient text as a whole bunch of words, servant being one of them. Are servants bought and property? Please bey attention.

              1. Cat333 profile image75
                Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                You sound like a teacher now, Rad Man, "Please pay attention". My point was that Sir Dent was not being deceptive to state the original word was "servant" because it was.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  No, the original word was not even in English, so it was not servant. Servants are not property, these people were property.

                  1. Cat333 profile image75
                    Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    You're right, Rad Man, I didn't make the point well or say it accurately. Still, it was NOT deception on Sir Dent's part and he didn't just go by a biblical translation, but looked up the original meaning of the original word.

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image55
          EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          SirDent was wrong, as can be shown in the Jewish Encyclopedia, confirming the link I provided:

          The Hebrew word "'ebed" really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it "servant" (a) where the word is used figuratively, pious men being "servants of the Lord" (Isa. xx. 3), and courtiers "servants of the king" (Jer. xxxvii. 2); and (b) in passages which refer to Hebrew bondmen, whose condition is far above that of slavery.

          http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic … nd-slavery

  2. profile image0
    SirDentposted 4 years ago

    @ Melissa

    You serve him? 

    Could not reply to your message because it could not be found.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, I learn from him. There isn't a thing I could serve him at.

      I know what you are getting at but that's not a teaching of my faith. I know it is in some other faiths, and I respect that. But no,  I personally don't view myself as either a slave or a servant of Christ. I see myself as a student and a follower. I wouldn't follow someone who I believed would have a need or a desire for a servant.

      1. profile image0
        SirDentposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        OK then.  Just for the record, Jesus never ever called His Father an ass.  Just saying.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Jesus was more diplomatic than I am.

          It would probably be a bad time to point out that I also don't believe that Jesus is the actual son of God, right? I mean any more than any of us are the children of God.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image81
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Very much with you here Melissa smile

            1. Cat333 profile image75
              Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Many believe in Jesus Christ as a teacher, prophet or just a good and wise man, including atheists, Muslims, etc.

              Christians are those who believe, through the revelation and knowledge given by the Spirit, that Jesus Christ is the One and only Son of the living God, the Savior of all people.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Christian |ˈkrisCHən|
                adjective
                of, relating to, or professing Christianity or its teachings: the Christian Church.
                • informal having or showing qualities associated with Christians, esp. those of decency, kindness, and fairness.
                noun
                a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

                Sorry, but you don't get to change definitions of well established words.

                1. Cat333 profile image75
                  Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  By your / the world's definition, atheists, Muslims, etc. may also be called Christians. Convenient.

                  1. bBerean profile image59
                    bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Cat33, this is a common theme and tactic for some.  I believe the intent has been to render the term "Christian" vague and meaningless.  It appears to have been successful.  You may find this link from before you joined HP interesting in this regard: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2484031

                  2. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Sorry, that's not my definition. Please look it up for yourself.

  3. potentialvictim profile image56
    potentialvictimposted 4 years ago

    Because Islam requires clitoridectomies and rejects sex altogether, and President Obama considers the US now the biggest Moslem nation in the world.

  4. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago

    When you guys figure out whether I am a Christian or not, go ahead and drop Jesus an email or something to let him know whether I am a member of the club. He'll be relieved that he doesn't have to determine that for himself anymore. Think of how many more rounds of golf he can get in now.

    After all, I'm sure your opinions on my faith matter just as much to him as they do to me.

    1. bBerean profile image59
      bBereanposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      It's all good Melissa. It appears you and Rad are both Christian, and me?  Looks like I'm just a little bit Buddhist.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Hey, if you say you are a Buddhist, I believe you. After all, I think you are a better judge of your own faith than some random stranger on the internet who knows nothing about you or how you live your life.

        I'm pretty sure Rad has said he's an atheist though... and I think, again, he would know better than a random stranger on the internet that knows nothing about his life.

  5. Lawrence David profile image59
    Lawrence Davidposted 4 years ago

    jonnycomelately....apparently the "christians" have been so preoccupied with twisting the "Holy Bible" in so many directions, they do not know where to go.  Not only do myriad offshoot's of Christianity twist words, they fail to read the paragraphs before, and following the passages they are so absorbed with.  When Mr. Falwell was alive, and Mr. Robertson was screaming about male to male practices, they never continued to read the passages following regarding who, or what, was laying down with who or what...they are always ready to condemn one minority group for their practices, when they ignore the primary one about the commission of adultry being high on the list of abominations....it really makes one wonder just who is guilty of what.

  6. John of the Cross profile image60
    John of the Crossposted 4 years ago

    Regarding the OP question, not the other...stuff: some of we Christians are deeply 'concerned with sexual matters' in the positive sense: that human sexuality can achieve spiritual proportions. Your assumption that 'we Christians' all have  a negative obsession with sexual sin is simply....wrong.

  7. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years ago

    I think what they're referring to is in Mark 6....

    Mark 6:3-6 - 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they were offended at Him.

    4 But Jesus said unto them, “A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.”

    5 And He could do no mighty works there, except that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

    6 And He marveled because of their unbelief. And He went round about the villages teaching.

    1. JMcFarland profile image84
      JMcFarlandposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      And mark 8:22-26 where he had to heal a blind man twice.

      These failings were corrected in later gospels and exaggerated into glowing successes as Jesus became less human and more divine in each retelling.   Could not in mark became would not.   Healed some became healed all,  etc.

      1. Cat333 profile image75
        Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Jesus healed all who came to him in faith (Just as all who come to him in faith are justified). It doesn't make him any less powerful or divine that our faith affects it  - this was the plan of God to give us our part in the equation.

        Jesus' sacrifice on the cross for all + our acceptance of this gift = salvation

        God's power (through Jesus when on earth and through the Spirit) + our faith = healing (or other miracle / answered prayer)

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Yep:) that is how I understand things to be as I read it all and some by personal experience also.  That is all besides my faith of course.  It all lines up just as it seems it would if it were true, and I think it is.

        2. JMcFarland profile image84
          JMcFarlandposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          That has nothing to do with the verse that I posted,  and I'm not interested in proselytizing.  I've heard the message.   I understand the message.   I don't believe that its true.  Repeating it over and over again will not make be believe or accept it.   If you want to have a conversation with me,  talk to me.   Don't preach at me.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image81
            jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            This I see as the major problem when "discussing" with those who hold such a strongly christian view.  It's often impossible to discuss objectively as you have tried to do, Julie.   Cat333 will never draw away from her subjective christian view.  When trying to look at the historical aspects of the biblical stories, you will not get an honest, inquiring attitude, only a proselytizing attitude.

            I have often given ground on the desires and beliefs of individuals, allowing that they "believe," and I don't.  Rarely do I get such respect and consideration in return for my a-theist view point.  Therefore I put up my barrier, once again, and refuse to argue with the faithful.  It becomes a waste of breath.  Hence my comparative silence here in the discussion.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              Had her defending beating slaves with clubs a while back. It is the most amazing thing. For some, not all, all reason disappears.

              1. Cat333 profile image75
                Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Now you've moved from manipulation to outright lies and slander, Rad Man! I specifically said the text did NOT read as instructing anyone to own or beat slaves, but rather when you read the entire chapter it similarly outlined the punishment / death penalty for those who both assaulted and killed a slave and a free person, but did not instruct the death penalty to those who injured but did not kill either the slave or the free person. It was actually a very similar punishment for both the slave and free person, and I don't think those who had slaves would have been so equitable.

                If you're going to tell such blatant falsehoods about people, how can anyone participate in a discussion with you?

                1. jonnycomelately profile image81
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  You make your own assumptions about things, you read into it what you "think" was meant.   This is not sticking to what is written, surely.  So why should Rad Man or J McF not draw their own conclusions, even if you don't agree with them?

                  1. Cat333 profile image75
                    Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, that was an opinion that those who made slaves of people would likely not have been equitable in their Law for the slaves and free persons. It was admittedly not inspired and may or may not be accurate. It was however, thinking critically, though perhaps not in the direction of your liking.

                    We all may draw our own conclusions. The humanly unknown should only be stated as undeniably true when given by revelation from the Spirit.

                2. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  You just did it again. You are defending scripture that says one is not to be punished if they hit someone with a club as long as the victim gets up in a day or so. I that morally sound to you? Be honest. And for the record I can go back and show you where you were defending that scripture.

                  1. Cat333 profile image75
                    Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    You will find me repeatedly saying God does NOT condone slavery! You will find me repeatedly saying that I do NOT condone slavery!

                    To say that the Law was roughly the same for the injured and killed free person and the injured and killed slave is NOT defending slavery or beating of anyone! When both the offender who assaulted the free person and the offender who assaulted the slave ended up killing them, the offenders were put to death. When either the free person or the slave recovered, the offenders were not put to death. 

                    If you say I have EVER condoned slavery, you are telling a falsehood. For I do not and never have condoned slavery.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      He did heal the sick there in verse five, and just didn't do mighty works because in his hometown, they lacked faith or belief.  Miracles were often linked to the persons faith or belief. This is like a backwards reinforcement of hat idea. 

      They didn't have faith even though he was healing right in front of them.  Think of this logic.  Jesus heals.  They lack faith.  He doesn't do mighty works in his home town because of lack if faith, only healing some sick. (Miracles, by the way)

      People today that could be said to lack faith,  might use this very story to point towards the disbelief of his power to do miracles.  It's the same mentality.  He gives them exactly what they insist on.  Later it's said to be inconsistent of the accounts even though the reason is given.  No one I know that believes the gospels pretends they aren't written from four different points if view.  Some include things others don't, they emphasize other things.

      If it's just all false anyway, these supposed errors that were corrected later on would have also removed the prior part that would let people in on the big ploy.  If it's about manipulating  something that was "not" , to look better later , we wouldn't have seen the glaring "error" left in place.  Especially not when assembling everything together later. It's counting on everyone involved to be liars and then doofuses, lol.  Liars making up stuff or embellishing things would have been the first to catch this.

      So it's really implausible this is the take away or a fair one.  It looks more to me, just what it looks like, the simple reading of it.   To each their own though.

      Maybe someone wants to make a case why Jesus owed those in his hometown bigger miracles than he showed there, especially when they weren't believing?  I would look at that argument.  It would be hard to make also though considering what high priority seems to be put on belief and faith elsewhere.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        I agree, if someone were looking to embellish the story, why leave the unaltered version in there as well where anyone and everyone who has access can compare and see the changes that were made?

        It's been shown in the case of juries, when all members are shown the same video, then asked a series of questions about details they observed, that each of those members will remember things differently from all the others. Some will swear the main protagonist was wearing a red jacket while others are certain he wasn't wearing a jacket at all.

        Because all four accounts are bound together, it's much more likely that differences are due to each individual recalling things differently, and much less that these were embellishments done later. If you're going to alter the text, why leave Mark alone, making the changes you made so obvious?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Which obviously begs the question "Who's accounts were more credible?"

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            None. People and their recollections are fallible. So I would think no single one is "more" credible than another if these are all we have to go by. But given we're provided four accounts, the best bet would be to reach a consensus through a combination of all of them.

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image84
          oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          That seems fair and reasonable to me. 

          A good jury and judge will look at all the accounts and then make a judgement.  If justice and truth are their goal.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
            EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            But, with no evidence, it will get thrown out of court.

        3. JMcFarland profile image84
          JMcFarlandposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Your last paragraph is easily explained,  headly.   For several centuries,  there was no new testament.   People didn't have books (plural) of the Bible.   They had a book.   One.   Some people liked mark.   Some liked Matthew.   Most people only had access to one.

          We do have examples of later scribes changing and altering words and phrases.   Bart ehrman discusses numerous examples of these changes.   Some were accidents.   Some were intentionally.   Most of the time,  people (even today) read the gospels vertically.   They read Matthew,  then read mark,  then read Luke,  then read John.   They don't read them horizontally,  comparing the gospel accounts to each other so a lot of these differences go unnoticed.   You can say it's didn't perspectives,  that's fine.   But there is a big difference between he could not do miracles and he would not do miracles.  One is intentional,  one is not.

          Marks Jesus was very human.   He gets angry.   He fails at times.   He dies alone,  in agony on the cross.   The latter gospels don't portray him that way,  and if it's a simple difference of perspective (and how can it be perspective when the authors weren't there to perceive it) then they can't all be true.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Well, that's fair and makes sense. I'm just thinking if I were going to take it upon myself to embellish a historical account, knowing full well there are other copies of that same text and other tellings of the same events floating around, then I haven't really done what I set out to do. In fact, with the other books and other copies, I'm only making the tampering more obvious.

            1. JMcFarland profile image84
              JMcFarlandposted 4 years agoin reply to this

              And the tampering is obvious to people who study textual criticism.   It's been recorded in bits and peeves for over a thousand years.   As ehrman points or,  there are more variations in the surviving manuscripts than there are words in the new testament.   Apologists have ways around these suddenness,  but they do exist.   Matthew constantly corrects mistakes in mark in his own gospel.   He doesn't rewrite mark itself,  but rewrites the gospel with the corrections within it.   He corrects geographical information,  judaic cultures and traditions, prophecies,  etc.

              Luke does a similar thing with mark and Matthew,  and even States it.   He states that there are lots of gospels out there,  insinuates that they're wrong,  goes out to investigate for himself and write down the real story - and then rips off Matthew and mark to do it.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image86
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Well, I've never been one to hold the bible up as being anything other than man-made and fallible. To me, the fallible human element is consistent with the story being told, and should always be accounted for.

                I think the gospels accomplished exactly what they needed to. They all consistently convey the man's message. And I think they adequately confirm that there was indeed a man going around in that age, getting people's fur up, causing upheaval with what he had to say.

                Because so many hands have been in the punch, this is one of the reasons why I started back at the beginning and looked to find proper context to ground it in. That way it allows to build out from there. The stories told by those gospels, the message conveyed, is consistent with what should be expected, given how the story started. Because free will introduced the capability for evil into the world, a being like Jesus was necessary. The "last Adam" to account for the fall of the "first Adam". The whole reason behind Adam dying as a result and Adam and Eve then needing to procreate. Jesus was the ultimate result of that. It completes the story.

              2. Cat333 profile image75
                Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                Sounds like you were there and you're a mind reader (or someone gave you some sort of supernatural revelation about all this). I mean how else would you know what gospels Luke was referring to, or what he "ripped off"?

                1. jonnycomelately profile image81
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Cat333, there is such a thing as intelligent and diligent study.   Have you tried it?

                  1. Cat333 profile image75
                    Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    People in these forums can't even accurately assess people's motives here and now, and in general people do miserably at such with far too much projection, assumptions, etc. How would she accurately assess Luke's motives no matter how much study she put into it?

                  2. JMcFarland profile image84
                    JMcFarlandposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    +1

                2. JMcFarland profile image84
                  JMcFarlandposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  This is what is studied when you study the history of the Bible,  textual criticism and biblical and early Christian history.   I'm not just pulling it out of my ass.   I studied this stuff.   I still study this stuff,  and this is not news to anyone in the field of biblical studies,  textual criticism and theology.   Where on earth have you been that you either blocked this knowledge out willingly or never heard it before?  Have you done any research whatsoever on early church history,  how and why the Bible was canonized in the first place or what process it was canonized by?

                  Here's the thing.   Luke chapter one States that there are many gospels floating around.   He states that he is going to investigate it for himself and write the true gospel.   Then he copies a relatively high amount of Matthew and mark.   That's not investigating.   It's plagiarism.

                  1. Cat333 profile image75
                    Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                    Or if he was led by the Spirit, it's putting in exactly what was intended by God to be in. There may have been far more gospels around than Mark and Matthew. If they contained too many human errors, God would not through the Spirit ensure that they survived and were included as were the others which matched truth closely enough. Perhaps Luke included so much of Mark and Matthew's gospels because through the Spirit he recognized that so much of theirs was in fact inspired by the Spirit.

                    These studies you speak of don't impress me at all. People don't impress me at all. God does.

                    Your theorists think Paul couldn't have written in different styles at different times to different people. How silly. They can study until Jesus' return, like hamsters running in their wheels. But for those of us who believe and know God, let us press on to truly know him and follow his loving encouragement - "Call to me and I will answer you and tell you great and unsearchable things you do not know." (Jeremiah 33:3)

          2. Cat333 profile image75
            Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            "But there is a big difference between he could not do miracles and he would not do miracles.  One is intentional,  one is not."

            I believe it's both - he COULD not and he WOULD not based on their lack of faith. Both were true, therefore both were permitted by the Spirit to be included and maintained in the Word.

            The essential truths are provided with slight differences. So, for example, if one gospel says that if we know how to give good gifts to our children, how much more will God give "good gifts", and another version says how much more will God give "the Holy Spirit" to those who ask for it, these may sound different but are really the same - gifts come through the Spirit.

        4. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Remember the writers were never present during Jesus's life. Marks was written first and the others had his to go by. If they were embellished that much during the time they were written down imagine how the stories had changed in the 70 years between Jesus and Marks writings.

      2. Cat333 profile image75
        Cat333posted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Well said, oceansnsunsets!

      3. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Think of this logic. No one can heal by use of magic. Believing that someone could heal by use of magic is not a use of logic.



        And, the gullible would lap it all up.

        1. Righteous Atheist profile image61
          Righteous Atheistposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Got to admit it is very, very funny seeing religionists using the word "logic." lol

  8. profile image52
    Elizabeth Loneposted 4 years ago

    Exerting power over others has always been the bullying way,,,wherever this pursuit can imply the most impact on human dignity is where bullies go.  Christianity; a bullying religion that carries a bloody, bullying history targets human sexuality as its moral "code".

    1. jonnycomelately profile image81
      jonnycomelatelyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      +1

  9. profile image50
    BrianishaFoxposted 4 years ago

    Sexuality is natural, and anything of nature must be controlled. The more my beliefs change, the more I realize marriage is a foreign concept and sex is just a part of nature that cannot be contained.

  10. profile image50
    BrianishaFoxposted 4 years ago

    Christian mysticism is a watered down version of mainstream christianity. Christians have this mentality of, if i take out the bad parts then Christianity will be harmless. If all of it is bad, then it is hard to weed out the bad parts.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image84
      oceansnsunsetsposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      How would you describe or define Christian mysticism?

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        Pure nonsense, of course. That should be obvious.

        1. Chris Neal profile image75
          Chris Nealposted 4 years agoin reply to this

          Except, of course, that it isn't.

    2. Chris Neal profile image75
      Chris Nealposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Christian mysticism is a component of mainstream Christianity. I'm very conservative and there's no way I can see that phrases like "born again," "Christ in you" and "the life is in the blood" fail to carry mystical components. That does not mean nor should it that mysticism is the main or most important part of Christianity.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image55
        EncephaloiDeadposted 4 years agoin reply to this

        It would appear mysticism is very much the main and most important part of Christianity considering there isn't much Christians can offer when comparing it to reality.

  11. Andrea Benfell profile image57
    Andrea Benfellposted 4 years ago

    To me anyone practising cruel and anti social practices simply isn't a true believer.God is only good.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)