Seeing as they claim Jesus amd Yahweh are one in the same you can’t just ignore the OT. All the condoning slavery, taking child sacrifice as payment, stoning women who don’t bleed on their wedding night… that is all part of the Christian god.
The OT is in the Christian Bible because they can’t ignore it, and shouldn’t ignore it. But that doesn’t mean following.
An eye for an eye is incompatible with turning the other cheek.
Slavery is entirely a human creation, neither the Bible nor the Torah tells believers to enslave other people but what is says, all from the OT to the NT, is “give to Caesar what’s his and give to God what’s His”, I know it sucks but it’s not that different from Stoic teachings, that’s why Catholics (and other Christians) belief that suffering makes them closer to God.
Edit.
There is a huge debate in Christendom about the meaning of “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Some believe the OT rules stand, some believe that they don’t. Catholics are taught the OT like kids learn history in school.
Whaaaaaaaa…?? “A human creation?” You can’t have it both ways. Either the Bible is the word of God, or it’s ALL “a human creation”. But allowing for the sake of discussion that God exists, etc, the NT endorses slavery, discusses how to practice it morally, and says nothing to oppose it. The Christian god thinks it’s okay for humans to own humans, according to both the OT and the NT; no different than owning a house or livestock.
What? God gave humans free will. God didn’t made slavery, didn’t made money, or democracy, didn’t made wars. Basically He created the world as it was during paradise and the rest is our creation.
Although I would argue Angels are like slaves but that’s not exactly the point of this and at least one rebelled so I don’t know to what point they are or were slaves.
So all Jesus had to do was say, “hey guys don’t own other humans” and yet he didn’t? Instead he actually condoned slavery? And his followers went on for decades after his death preaching for slaves to obey their masters?
Haha no, god explicitly commanded slavery on multiple different instances. That’s irrelevant though, as god is the one who created everything knowing how it would turn out with full ability to prevent it, making it 100% his fault. For example:
When God supposedly created Adam and Eve, he had perfect foreknowledge that they would eat from the tree and cause the bullshit that is the fall and original sin. And yet, he still put the tree there. He still put the serpent there. He still gave them access to the tree. He could have chosen not to let any of these things happen, but he didn’t.
When a toddler swallows a bottle of poison you’ve left on the floor, whose fault is it? (Hint: it’s not the toddler’s, and it’s certainly not the toddler’s future great great great great great grandchildren’s)
Nah you just don’t get it, slavery is fine when god commands it because he created us and might makes right, obviously. /s
Yeah, I will occasionally throw call-in shows like the atheist experience on as background noise while I do things. I’ve heard my share of terrible takes on why slavery on the bible is actually a good thing.
Hey, same lol… After a while you realize how few arguments they have. It’s always the same handful, and people call in thinking they’re gonna blow the guy who’s been doing this for 30 years’ mind
You’re heading towards the problem of evil and determinism. Those topics are way to big for a casual post like this and have been argued for and against for a very long time. I don’t this you’ll be able to convince anyone of anything here.
There is an entire set of laws on how to properly own and beat one’s slaves so your comment is just flat out wrong and sounds like it’s from some bad excusegist.
If you study the actual language and historical context then most of the OT was supposed to be followed by Christians. The issue came later debating between the two churches decades after Jesus’ death.
Amd the eye for an eye vs turn your cheek are about two very different things and are very much compatible.
Sadly most Catholics are taught from an apologetic point of view rather than a historical literary understanding. Poor translations a d church doctrine causes many important parts to be grossly bastardized.
Turning the other cheek isn’t incompatible with eye-for-an-eye.
The principle behind eye for an eye justice is that the sentence must fit the crime, instead of brutally excessive. Like cutting off people’s hand for stealing a loaf of bread.
Turning the other cheek doesn’t negate the law, it forgives the consequences of that law. It says “hey, I see you’re starving, here’s a second loaf.”
Incidentally, a man who is starving and the merchant not giving him bread was murder. But details.
Another way of saying it, is that Jesus simplified the law. Because they were too dumb to follow the first ten, Christ gave a simpler set of two:
Love god. Love your neighbor.
This doesn’t negate the 10, but encompasses them.
Edit: to the point about slavery, exodus 21… all sorts of beautiful laws. Like, Hebrew women who are slaves don’t get to go free in the sixth year… and clearly being okay with dudes selling their daughters into slavery.
Seeing as they claim Jesus amd Yahweh are one in the same you can’t just ignore the OT. All the condoning slavery, taking child sacrifice as payment, stoning women who don’t bleed on their wedding night… that is all part of the Christian god.
The OT is in the Christian Bible because they can’t ignore it, and shouldn’t ignore it. But that doesn’t mean following.
An eye for an eye is incompatible with turning the other cheek.
Slavery is entirely a human creation, neither the Bible nor the Torah tells believers to enslave other people but what is says, all from the OT to the NT, is “give to Caesar what’s his and give to God what’s His”, I know it sucks but it’s not that different from Stoic teachings, that’s why Catholics (and other Christians) belief that suffering makes them closer to God.
Edit.
There is a huge debate in Christendom about the meaning of “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Some believe the OT rules stand, some believe that they don’t. Catholics are taught the OT like kids learn history in school.
Matthew 5:18
Whaaaaaaaa…?? “A human creation?” You can’t have it both ways. Either the Bible is the word of God, or it’s ALL “a human creation”. But allowing for the sake of discussion that God exists, etc, the NT endorses slavery, discusses how to practice it morally, and says nothing to oppose it. The Christian god thinks it’s okay for humans to own humans, according to both the OT and the NT; no different than owning a house or livestock.
What? God gave humans free will. God didn’t made slavery, didn’t made money, or democracy, didn’t made wars. Basically He created the world as it was during paradise and the rest is our creation.
Although I would argue Angels are like slaves but that’s not exactly the point of this and at least one rebelled so I don’t know to what point they are or were slaves.
So all Jesus had to do was say, “hey guys don’t own other humans” and yet he didn’t? Instead he actually condoned slavery? And his followers went on for decades after his death preaching for slaves to obey their masters?
Real cool guy.
Haha no, god explicitly commanded slavery on multiple different instances. That’s irrelevant though, as god is the one who created everything knowing how it would turn out with full ability to prevent it, making it 100% his fault. For example:
When God supposedly created Adam and Eve, he had perfect foreknowledge that they would eat from the tree and cause the bullshit that is the fall and original sin. And yet, he still put the tree there. He still put the serpent there. He still gave them access to the tree. He could have chosen not to let any of these things happen, but he didn’t.
When a toddler swallows a bottle of poison you’ve left on the floor, whose fault is it? (Hint: it’s not the toddler’s, and it’s certainly not the toddler’s future great great great great great grandchildren’s)
Christians never have a reply to this. Actually no… I’ve seen some of them literally say that slavery is fine after having this discussion.
Nah you just don’t get it, slavery is fine when god commands it because he created us and might makes right, obviously. /s
Yeah, I will occasionally throw call-in shows like the atheist experience on as background noise while I do things. I’ve heard my share of terrible takes on why slavery on the bible is actually a good thing.
Hey, same lol… After a while you realize how few arguments they have. It’s always the same handful, and people call in thinking they’re gonna blow the guy who’s been doing this for 30 years’ mind
God commanded his followers to enslave people multiple times. Here is an introductory article on the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
You’re heading towards the problem of evil and determinism. Those topics are way to big for a casual post like this and have been argued for and against for a very long time. I don’t this you’ll be able to convince anyone of anything here.
I am not here to convince anyone, just sharing my opinion and reading other’s opinion.
There is an entire set of laws on how to properly own and beat one’s slaves so your comment is just flat out wrong and sounds like it’s from some bad excusegist.
If you study the actual language and historical context then most of the OT was supposed to be followed by Christians. The issue came later debating between the two churches decades after Jesus’ death.
Amd the eye for an eye vs turn your cheek are about two very different things and are very much compatible.
Sadly most Catholics are taught from an apologetic point of view rather than a historical literary understanding. Poor translations a d church doctrine causes many important parts to be grossly bastardized.
Turning the other cheek isn’t incompatible with eye-for-an-eye.
The principle behind eye for an eye justice is that the sentence must fit the crime, instead of brutally excessive. Like cutting off people’s hand for stealing a loaf of bread.
Turning the other cheek doesn’t negate the law, it forgives the consequences of that law. It says “hey, I see you’re starving, here’s a second loaf.”
Incidentally, a man who is starving and the merchant not giving him bread was murder. But details.
Another way of saying it, is that Jesus simplified the law. Because they were too dumb to follow the first ten, Christ gave a simpler set of two:
Love god. Love your neighbor.
This doesn’t negate the 10, but encompasses them.
Edit: to the point about slavery, exodus 21… all sorts of beautiful laws. Like, Hebrew women who are slaves don’t get to go free in the sixth year… and clearly being okay with dudes selling their daughters into slavery.
Slavery is not just in the OT. I guess “neighbors” don’t include the people that you own.