Harrie,

Quote: › Suppose those babies grow up, how would their chances be then?

The same. They could end up in heaven or hell dependent upon their choices.

Quote: › So we all do not have a sinful nature any longer?

Yes we do. However, if you have faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit will help you defeat the urges and desires caused by your sin nature.

You must be born again by the Spirit of God by faith in Christ. No buts.

Quote: › would you explain that slavery is wrong?

He did in the NT.

Quote: › Shouldn’t Jesus have stoned that woman that was to be stoned according to the Mosaic laws?

The trial was not even close to being just. Where was the man in all of this?

Deuteronomy 22:22

22 If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel.

Jesus was not to be judge, jury and executioner all by Himself. No man was.

Deuteronomy 17:2,6-7

2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant,

6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you.

Just God. Just laws.

Quote: › Jesus was without sin?

Absolutely.

Quote: › Christ redeemed us from that Mosaic curse, God Himself placed upon us. Did I read that correctly?

The law cannot save AND it CANNOT curse.

God cursed Adam for his disobedience from God's one command.

God would curse whomever for disobedience to the greater law.

Christ saved us from the requirements set forth by the law. If we didn't break the law, we wouldn't get cursed by the law.

Christ didn't break the law.

Faith in Christ justifies us. Just as if we had never sinned.

2 Corinthians 5: 17-20

17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

Quote: › God did guide people with the OT for ages, isn’t that correct?

Harrie, the law was our teacher. It taught us what God demanded from us as people. It showed us that, no matter who we are or how "cultured" and advanced we think we are, we cannot keep the standard of holiness and righteousness that God has.

Quote: › But I'm glad that God changed His mind in the NT, once again.

To condemn an action outright is not an easy thing to do if you want to abolish the action.

You must first convince the actor that the action is wrong.

God tried this approach by having the Jews treat their slaves as equals to themselves.

The passage you like to harp on is about a disobedient slave. Not treatment of slaves in general.

Quote: › You never considered that, did you?

Quite a bit at first because I didn't understand divine inspiration. Now that I understand it, it makes sense more and more.

Quote: › “The same. They could end up in heaven or hell dependent upon their choices.”

One baby is born with a sinful nature, and the other one is born without a sinful nature. Yet you think their chances are the same? What has this sinful nature for effect in that case?
Would one child not grow up having difficulties seeing the truth?
And therefor not stray easier and become a non-believer sooner?

Quote: › “Yes we do (have a sinful nature.) However, if you have faith in Christ, the Holy Spirit will help you defeat the urges and desires caused by your sin nature. You must be born again by the Spirit of God by faith in Christ. No buts.”

So Christ did NOT take away our sinful nature. And He did not take away our sin, did He?

We are all punished for Adam’s crime by a sinful nature.
We can’t help having this sinful nature as we are born with that.
Only when you have faith in Christ you can overcome that sinful nature.

BUT, if you do not belief at all in Christ, you will never ever be able to find Him, as that sinful nature has warped your mind so we can’t see reality as it is, isn’t that correct?
So God let’s us inherit a sinful nature for a crime we did not commit, with as result that we can’t see the truth and can not belief in Christ unless we are able to disregard anything we experiance as reality, and blindly accept Christ anyway.
Only after that, we will be able to understand.

And as many people on earth grow up in a different place with a different religion, many will be taught to be non-Christians. For example; I was raised being a false Christian, and many people on earth are raised being a Hindu or whatever. Your religion depends highly on the place and time you are born, don’t you agree? Hinduism mostly in India, Buddhism in Tibet and Japan, Islam in Arabia, Middle East, Africa and Pakistan, etc... All these people will have difficulties in finding Christ.
IF their minds would not be warped by their sinful nature, they would no doubt see the truth of Christ immediately, don’t you think?

But as I said before, that is a catch 22 situation: if you can’t see the truth in Christ, you will not accept Him. In fact: you CAN’T accept Him, as the reality as you experience it does not point to Christ.

That is exactly the same as if I would ask you to become an @theist: you can’t!
So in a way, God condemns most people on this planet to eternal hell, simply by letting them be born in the wrong place or time, being born with a sinful nature?

Quote: › “He did in the NT.”

He did the opposite in the OT, but I’m asking you: if you would leave a message for generations to come, would you clearly condemn slavery or not?

Quote: › “The trial was not even close to being just. Where was the man in all of this?”

Wasn’t it God’s law that the woman should get stoned? No matter if that man had to be stoned too or not? And if the law was not correctly conducted, shouldn’t Jesus have said so?
After all, nothing was changed in interpretation of the Mosaic law at that point in time?
Jesus simply said that he who was without sin should cast the first stone.
I doubt it if you need to be without sin to stone people according to the Mosaic laws?
Anyway, as Jesus was without sin, He should have cast the first stone, or IF He thought the stoning was unfair, He should have explained why.

Quote: › “Just God. Just laws.”

This is one of my biggest problems with that divine inspired Bible. I can understand very well that some desert tribe would think up barbaric and unjust laws, but I can’t understand that a good God would inspire people to write such things down.

The OT promotes the death penalty, and the death penalty requires a perfect justice system that can not exist, certainly not a few thousandth years ago. There must have been many innocent victims, caused by such laws?

Quote: › “Christ saved us from the requirements set forth by the law.”

Only after he was crucified?

Quote: › “If we didn't break the law, we wouldn't get cursed by the law.”

Sounds pretty obvious, but I think having to obey such laws was a curse in itself, don’t you think? Compare it to today’s Saudi Arabia where they still do such things.

Who placed that cursed law upon the people?

Quote: › “Christ didn't break the law.”

Didn’t He break the law by disobeying the law by not stoning the woman? The Mosaic laws were still in place at that moment in time, were they not?

Quote: › “Faith in Christ justifies us. Just as if we had never sinned.”

I understand that, although I do not belief it is fair.
A man who had done all he could to help people, but did not belief in Christ will burn in hell, and a murdering rapist can end up in heaven as long as he has faith in Christ at his moment of death.

To some extent I can understand that bit about being drastically changed for the good, that does happen sometimes, but I have grave problems with that good guy going to hell only for not believing in Christ.


Me: “God did guide people with the OT for ages, isn’t that correct?”

Quote: › “Harrie, the law was our teacher. It taught us what God demanded from us as people. It showed us that, no matter who we are or how "cultured" and advanced we think we are, we cannot keep the standard of holiness and righteousness that God has.”

I can’t for the life of me detect any divine inspiration in those laws, unless God is not good.
Slavery is a bad thing: always, no matter the time and place. Women are not of less value than men, never in no time and place, perhaps you could even argue the opposite. You don’t sell your daughter to her rapist, in no time and place. A good God would not harden a man’s heart so God would have a reason to punish innocent people.
You can tell the tree by the fruit; that bit is wise indeed.

Quote: › “God tried this approach by having the Jews treat their slaves as equals to themselves.”

That is not what I read in those laws at all. A slave was the property of the owner and his children could inherit the slaves. And a woman was worth 30 shekel while a man did 50 shekel in the open market. God’s priced the slaves Himself.

God could have clearly condemned slavery, He definitely did not do that. He condoned it instead and helped the slave owners with the laws to support them.

Quote: › “The passage you like to harp on is about a disobedient slave. Not treatment of slaves in general.”

That passage says nothing at all about the reason for the punishment. It simply states that the slave owner may beat his slave with a rod without being punished himself, as long as that slave gets up within a day or two. That’s it.

Should the Bible not be a guide to your life?

Quote: › “Quite a bit at first because I didn't understand divine inspiration. Now that I understand it, it makes sense more and more.”

Could you explain to me how divine inspiration works and why you do not doubt it?
After all, even people today claim they are divine inspired or even talk to God, (Donald Neal Walsh, for example) and you do not belief them. Why belief the Bible? You know even less about it’s authors than you can know about Walsh?

Harrie,

Quote: › Yet you think their chances are the same?

Adam was created without a sinful nature. He still fell.

Quote: › What has this sinful nature for effect in that case?

I'm not following this question. Please rephrase that for me.

Quote: › Would one child not grow up having difficulties seeing the truth?

Adam walked with God and he still fell.

Quote: › And therefor not stray easier and become a non-believer sooner?

Having a sinful nature does not mean you can't see the truth.

Quote: › So Christ did NOT take away our sinful nature.

I never said He did.

Quote: › And He did not take away our sin, did He?

If you trust Him, He will. But if you don't, He won't

Quote: › you will never ever be able to find Him, as that sinful nature has warped your mind so we can’t see reality as it is, isn’t that correct?

Yes, you can still find Him. You just have to seek.

Quote: › IF their minds would not be warped by their sinful nature, they would no doubt see the truth of Christ immediately, don’t you think?

No. Adam walked with God and he still sinned and disobeyed God.

Quote: › So in a way, God condemns most people on this planet to eternal hell, simply by letting them be born in the wrong place or time, being born with a sinful nature?

God is not far from any one person on this planet.

Quote: › but I’m asking you: if you would leave a message for generations to come, would you clearly condemn slavery or not?

I know a person, a millionaire and a very esteemed lawyer outside of Washington D.C., he pays people a small wage and gives them a house to live in in exchange for labor. This is not very different from slavery described in the bible.

Is this man wrong? OR, should he let those people go without work?

Quote: › Wasn’t it God’s law that the woman should get stoned? No matter if that man had to be stoned too or not?

They were to be stoned together.

And besides, you are missing the point. God is allowed to forgive any and all violations against His laws. They are His.

Quote: › Anyway, as Jesus was without sin, He should have cast the first stone, or IF He thought the stoning was unfair, He should have explained why.

You would be a hell of a messiah, Harrie. You should start a cult.

Jesus is God. The laws are His. If He wants to forgive, it is His prerogative.

Quote: › Only after he was crucified?

Only after He was crucified.

Quote: › but I think having to obey such laws was a curse in itself, don’t you think?

Yes I do. That is why Adam's sin had the effect it does. He had one simple test. Don't eat the one certain fruit in the middle of the garden. Spelled out quite plainly and he STILL blew it.

Quote: › Who placed that cursed law upon the people?

The law was not cursed.

Quote: › Didn’t He break the law by disobeying the law by not stoning the woman?

Jesus was a nobody in the eyes of the Pharisees. He didn't have their authority.

Quote: › but I have grave problems with that good guy going to hell only for not believing in Christ.

Thinking you don't NEED Christ is one of the worst sins anybody could ever commit.

So that good guy of yours is a more grievous sinner than a murderer according to God.

And before you spout that it is unfair, is the death of Christ on our behalf fair? Why do you deserve to have a potential savior in Christ when all you do is ridicule Him?

Because, like the good guy who gave all his money to the poor and the repentant mass murderer, we are all equal in the sight of God.

Equally worthy of death.

Equally worthy, because of Christ, of life.

Quote: › You can tell the tree by the fruit; that bit is wise indeed.

You got that right.

Quote: › That is not what I read in those laws at all.

Then read it again.

Quote: › God could have clearly condemned slavery, He definitely did not do that.

Yes He did.

Quote: › Should the Bible not be a guide to your life?

I've said it before, the OT points out our need for Jesus Christ. Why can't you understand that?

Quote: › Could you explain to me how divine inspiration works and why you do not doubt it?

I have given you resources to explain that but you reject them. So, no.

Quote: › “Adam was created without a sinful nature. He still fell.”

Compare it with an inherited tendency to alcoholism, perhaps. Sure not everybody with such a tendency will end up being an alcoholic, and sure some people who do not have a born in tendency to alcoholism still will turn into an alcoholic. But you will agree that the one born with such a tendency will have a higher chance to become an alcoholic?

So here my question again:
Has a baby with an inherited sinful nature just as much CHANCE (percentage wise) than a baby that is born without an inherited sinful nature?


Me: “What has this sinful nature for effect in that case?”

Quote: › “I'm not following this question. Please rephrase that for me.”

If the chances for those two babies stay exactly the same, what has this inherited sinful nature for effect in real life?


Me: “you will never ever be able to find Him, as that sinful nature has warped your mind so we can’t see reality as it is, isn’t that correct?”

Quote: › “Yes, you can still find Him. You just have to seek.”

No, seeking is not enough. If you seek the truth, you will not always be able to see the truth in Christ, that is how I even lost my faith in the first place.
A bit strange in a way, as I DID belief in Christ, although perhaps in an incorrect manner, but from there I should have found my way to the correct view of Christ? Instead I lost all faith...

But this is my problem step by step:
You told me that our inherited sinful nature warps the way we see reality, so we can’t see reality as it is.
You also claim that if we seek Christ, that this warping of reality does not matter.
But if I seek the truth in Christ with my warped perception, I can NOT see the truth in Christ, so I CAN’T open my heart to Christ and let Him in to begin with, so to speak. Can you understand my problem?
It would be the same as if I ask you to open your heart to Brahma. Can you do that?
I bet you can’t, as from a Hindu’s point of view, your perception might be warped so you can’t see the truth in Brahma.


Me: “IF their minds would not be warped by their sinful nature, they would no doubt see the truth of Christ immediately, don’t you think?”

Quote: › “No. Adam walked with God and he still sinned and disobeyed God.”

So NOT having a sinful nature is not a guarantee to see the truth, may I word it like that?
Or else Adam would not have sinned I suppose? How come that seeing God in person makes so little impression on someone that was created directly by God without even a sinful nature?

Me: “So in a way, God condemns most people on this planet to eternal hell, simply by letting them be born in the wrong place or time, being born with a sinful nature?”

Quote: › “God is not far from any one person on this planet.”

Where do most Hindu’s live? Will a Hindu end up in heaven or hell?
Where do most Muslims live? Will a Muslim end up in heaven or hell?
Where do most Buddhists live? Will a Buddhist end up in heaven or hell?

Where do most Christians live? Will a Christian end up in heaven or hell?

Quote: › “I know a person, a millionaire and a very esteemed lawyer outside of Washington D.C., he pays people a small wage and gives them a house to live in in exchange for labor. This is not very different from slavery described in the bible. Is this man wrong? OR, should he let those people go without work?”

Are the people free to leave if they want to?
Can the workers be inherited by the children of the millionaire?
May the millionaire beat his workers with a rod to discipline them?

If the answer to all questions is no, than this situation is not at all as the one described in the Bible!
Have you forgotten the verse in the Bible that clearly states that slaves can be inherited by the children of the slave owners?

Leviticus:

25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

This is God’s law: slaves are owned forever and can be inherited by the children of the owner. Does that sound like a kind millionaire?
How do you explain this verse to yourself, trying to keep in mind that God is supposed to be good? How can a good God ever inspire to something like that? There are even different rules for the children of Israel! So God clearly discriminates between the children of Israel and all other people.
And yes, we talked about this, you will tell me that this was normal in those days, and probably it was.

But God’s message is supposed to lead us! Not confirm our mistakes!

Exactly verses like this one, and the way Christians tend to forget them or explain them, is why I can’t belief that the Bible is divine inspired!

Quote: › “They were to be stoned together.”

Why does that matter? We don’t even know what happened to that man, do we? Perhaps he was stoned before or after, for all we know. May I see the verses that require that the man and woman should be stoned together at the same time?
The point is this woman, that needed to be stoned according to God’s own laws.

Quote: › “And besides, you are missing the point. God is allowed to forgive any and all violations against His laws. They are His.”

Then Jesus should have said so, instead of saying that the one without sin should throw the first stone. Jesus even came down to earth to fulfill God’s law as it Must to be fulfilled no matter what, Jesus even HAD TO die to fulfill His law, isn’t that true? Yet this part He does not need to fulfill?

Quote: › “Jesus is God. The laws are His. If He wants to forgive, it is His prerogative.”

If Jesus IS God, like you say, breaking His own laws would undermine the laws themselves, don’t you think? Jesus also said that nothing in the laws should be changed, and Jesus/God thought the laws were important enough to kill over, as He clearly did during the many generations before He came to earth in the flesh as that was needed to fulfill His own laws.

Quote: › “Only after He was crucified.”

So the Mosaic laws were still in place, is that correct? Yet God Himself did not obey them, yet also NEEDS to obey them by being crucified for our sake?


Me: “but I think having to obey such laws was a curse in itself, don’t you think?”

Quote: › “Yes I do. That is why Adam's sin had the effect it does. He had one simple test. Don't eat the one certain fruit in the middle of the garden. Spelled out quite plainly and he STILL blew it.”

But God knew that Adam would blow it, didn’t He? After all, God is all knowing?
So that was the whole purpose of that tree, and why it was smack in the middle right in sight, wasn’t it?
Adam was created by God, and put in a garden with a forbidden tree right in the middle of it. Adam HAD to sin, according to God’s plan.
Anything else doesn’t make sense at all. So God created Adam to sin. And He made His creation in such a way that we would all inherit this sinful nature. After all, if God would not have wanted us to inherit a sinful nature, we would not have inherited this sinful nature, would we? So this inherited sinful nature is God’s will too! After all, we can’t help that Adam sinned, can we?

Quote: › “Thinking you don't NEED Christ is one of the worst sins anybody could ever commit.”

Yes, worse than murder, rape, genocide, for not seeing the truth as a result of a inherited sinful nature we are born with.

Quote: › “And before you spout that it is unfair, is the death of Christ on our behalf fair?”

The death of Christ still does not make sense to me. I still don’t see why He had to die to fulfill His own law, while other parts of His law could easily be denied.

Quote: › “Why do you deserve to have a potential savior in Christ when all you do is ridicule Him?”

Think about all those people who had never even heard of Christ, so are unable to ridicule Him, but still live a very good life.
Or all of those that did hear about Him, but are in the same position to Christ as you are to Brahma? And you KNOW you CAN’T convert to Brahma.

Quote: › “Because, like the good guy who gave all his money to the poor and the repentant mass murderer, we are all equal in the sight of God.”

No, we are not. If we are not born in the West we have a lesser chance of going to heaven, and woman are of less value than men. And Israelites are better than all others.


Me: “You can tell the tree by the fruit; that bit is wise indeed.”

Quote: › “You got that right.”

Trick question: One person has killed over 2 million, while the other killed 10 individuals, who would you lock up?

Me: “That is not what I read in those laws at all.(“God tried this approach by having the Jews treat their slaves as equals to themselves.”)”

Quote: › Then read it again.

Let's do so:

Leviticus: 25:46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Exodus
21:32 If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.

Leviticus
19:20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.


I could go on and on for quite a while, but I guess you get the picture. And I left that one out about that beating with a rod, we know that one by know.

Are all of those laws divine inspired anti slavery?

Me: “God could have clearly condemned slavery, He definitely did not do that.”

Quote: › “Yes He did.”

You have numerous pro slavery laws in the OT and one anti slavery remark in the NT, from the SAME God.


Me: “Should the Bible not be a guide to your life?”

Quote: › “I've said it before, the OT points out our need for Jesus Christ. Why can't you understand that?”

How can laws about slavery point out our need for Jesus Christ? You said Jesus IS God, so He made those laws Himself?

Then we even have completely silly laws:

Leviticus 19:27
'Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

Quote: › “I have given you resources to explain that but you reject them. So, no.”

I can Google such things myself, but they tell me nothing as I do not understand them.
Perhaps it would help if you would use your own mind, your own words and your own logic to explain, instead of showing me sites that provide me with words but not with insight.

How does divine inspiration work and why do you not doubt it? Can you explain that in your own words?

Harrie,

I do have this to tell you:

Quote: › Are the people free to leave if they want to?

Some actually sign a contract. Others have borrowed so much money they cannot quit. Others work for little money or no raises because they like to work for him.

Quote: › Can the workers be inherited by the children of the millionaire?

You will never guess who is in charge of his business now.

Quote: › May the millionaire beat his workers with a rod to discipline them?

You got me there, Harrie. BUT, if I had a choice to lose my job or take a whupping, especially in this economy, I might think harder than I normally would about that whupping. Call me what you will. You've implied it enough already.

Quote: › “Some actually sign a contract. Others have borrowed so much money they cannot quit. Others work for little money or no raises because they like to work for him.”

Sign a contract for life? But if you borrowed so much money, that does not mean that you need to stay work for him? So, if they find a job elsewhere, they could go if they liked?
This was definitely not so in the Bible! Slaves were OWNED, they were property. Only if you were Israelite those more civil rules applied, and I think you know that but just can’t accept?


Me: “Can the workers be inherited by the children of the millionaire?”
“You will never guess who is in charge of his business now.”
His son of-course. But is his son the owner of the workers or only the owner of the company?


Me: “May the millionaire beat his workers with a rod to discipline them?”

Quote: › “You got me there, Harrie. BUT, if I had a choice to lose my job or take a whupping, especially in this economy, I might think harder than I normally would about that whupping.”

Do you feel that would be the right of your boss, the correct way of communicating with his workers? As that is what it is all about of course. Are those divine slave laws right for any time and any place?

Quote: › “Call me what you will. You've implied it enough already.’

Perhaps you are projecting your self image onto me? I have never insulted you in any way, and if I did without realizing that, I would like to see the evidence for it so I might explain myself.
You could ask yourself why that thought comes to your mind so often, as you have mentioned something like this several times before?

Harrie,

Quote: › I think you know that but just can’t accept?

I have answered that question many times. You cannot accept my answer.

Quote: › I have never insulted you in any way,

You've insulted my beliefs many times. I don't care though. You are entitled to your own thoughts.

But, when I give you my answers you reject them. And that is because you cannot accept them or understand them yourself.

You ask. I tell. You reject. Not my fault.

Me: “I think you know that but just can’t accept?”

Quote: › “I have answered that question many times. You cannot accept my answer.”

I have opened a new thread to discus that slave verse, as it keeps bothering me quite a bit.
Feel free to join the discussion or not.

Quote: › “You've insulted my beliefs many times.”

I don’t understand your belief and that’s all. Every question about faith can be understood as an insult as it clearly does not confirm the faith but questions it.
But I need to ask unpleasant questions to learn what I want to know! How else should I do it?
And I admitted several times I’m not much of a diplomat and like to get to the point quickly, but I do my best to stay civil.

Quote: › “But, when I give you my answers you reject them. And that is because you cannot accept them or understand them yourself.”

Sure I can’t understand them, and that’s why I continue to ask.

Quote: › “You ask. I tell. You reject. Not my fault.”

I didn’t say it is your fault, it might just be your religion that is a bit complex here and there for you to understand it yourself. That too is normal, but simply do not attempt to answer my questions if you do not have an answer you understand yourself. That is only frustrating to both of us.