{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
11/11/2014 8:50:49 PM
1
Not quite. Slavery was a common practice in the Old Testament, as well as the Roman Empire. God's purposes in the Old Testament are to grant a homeland to the descendants of Abraham in order to be a blessing to all people. In that day, slavery was the result of war, which is how the Israelites gained their home. In the New Testament, slavery is not condoned or supported. Jesus's message and sacrifice was for all people, creating a degree of equality that had never been seen before. Why would slaves have to be told to obey their masters? They were already doing that. Telling them to do so implies that some event has occurred that makes that necessary. The gospel freed people, but in order to show the radical nature of Christianity, slaves were exhorted not to rise up against their masters. It was to demonstrate the peacefulness and nonviolence of this new teaching.
English
-
Why would the old testament be less meaningful then the new? Im sure the all knowing god you claim wouldnt make a mistake after all it is god. So make a new book saying this or that is bad because people began to deny the original teaching so lets change it. Maybe there's a new new testament on the way that will say laying with the same sex is ok. that way there can be more sheep in the herd. Hell the pope even said he's fine with homosexuals. Its all about pleasing the sheep to get money and keep the masses under control
-
The Old Testament is less meaningful because of Jesus. That's pretty basic. It would make no sense, at all, to follow the Law of the Old Testament because the sacrifice was paid when Jesus died. You're confusing nitpicky things with those that matter. The Bible isn't a book of morality, though it does include that. It is an account of God, man, and the relationship between the two. The difference between the OT and the NT wasn't a couple of revisions of rules. Furthermore, and the OT even sets this up, Jesus was the complete fulfillment of the purpose of Abraham, and by extension, Israel. The Old Testament was not just religious, it was political and cultural. The NT is not that at all. God didn't make a mistake. He gave us what we could handle when we could handle it. As to the pope, he is merely taking a Biblical stance. The Church isn't accepting homosexuality, it is accepting people. That's what Christianity is all about. It's in the Bible. He isn't saying it's ok to be homosexual, he's saying that as the Church we should take in all people because we are all in need of God's grace. Even Jesus said that, like a doctor, he came for the sick, not the healthy. It's not a change in doctrine. It's a change in a terrible way cultural issues have been handled.
-
Accepting people who love to donate. More people more money. And I'm sure all the famine, poverty, and war worldwide is because god is so caring and innocent children that are shot or starving can handle it
-
Last time I checked, the Church as a whole is the most charitable organization on the face of the Earth. Furthermore, people make the decision to go to war and squeeze the trigger. Also, and I didn't think I'd have to point this out, famine and whatnot are consequences of weather patterns. Those things are the result of natural laws that are easily explained scientifically. There's probably a good chance that we have contributed a great deal to that too, both in the weather and out farming techniques and greed. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Don't blame God for problems that are clearly the fault of man unless you're willing to give Him credit for everything that is good in the world and in yourself. It's hypocritical.
