The New Testament regulates slavery within the context of the Roman Empire. It absolutely does not abolish it. The closest it comes is condemning slave traders as ungodly. It doesn't tell masters to release and free their slave (which would be abolishing), but rather to treat them with justice and fairness. In the same vein, it doesn't tell slaves to claim their own freedom and flee their masters, but rather to submit to them ("with fear and trembling").
At best, you can say that the New Testament doesn't give the kind of moral endorsement to slavery that the Old Testament gives -- and that it is helping Christians navigate a world in which slavery was an inevitable reality, within their newer "higher" covenant and law -- but saying it was abolished within the New Testament is nonsense.
The New Testament regulates slavery within the context of the Roman Empire. It absolutely does not abolish it. The closest it comes is condemning slave traders as ungodly. It doesn't tell masters to release and free their slave (which would be abolishing), but rather to treat them with justice and fairness. In the same vein, it doesn't tell slaves to claim their own freedom and flee their masters, but rather to submit to them ("with fear and trembling").
At best, you can say that the New Testament doesn't give the kind of moral endorsement to slavery that the Old Testament gives -- and that it is helping Christians navigate a world in which slavery was an inevitable reality, within their newer "higher" covenant and law -- but saying it was abolished within the New Testament is nonsense.
Yes. Quantum1982 likes to take a big streeeeetch when it comes to what he thinks the Bible does or does not say.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Blasphemy is defined by the person making the accusation; there's no universal standard. All anyone is saying with that is they're offended because you're disagreeing with their precious beliefs. Who cares?
I can call you blasphemous disagreeing with me. It's meaningless. And who gives a damn, right?
What was false about what I said?
I tend to agree that “blasphemy” exists only in the mind of the believer. If a non believer “blasphemes” in the eyes of a believer, then that blasphemy only exists in the life of the believer. The non believer hasn’t blasphemed anything in their eyes because they haven’t rubbished anything that they believe in. The non believer may no upfront that what they are about to say will be seen as blasphemy by the person to whom they are making the comment. But accepting the other person sees it as blasphemy is not equivalent to accepting it a blasphemy oneself. And that’s not subjective opinion, it’s a hard truth.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I tend to agree that “blasphemy” exists only in the mind of the believer. If a non believer “blasphemes” in the eyes of a believer, then that blasphemy only exists in the life of the believer. The non believer hasn’t blasphemed anything in their eyes because they haven’t rubbished anything that they believe in. The non believer may no upfront that what they are about to say will be seen as blasphemy by the person to whom they are making the comment. But accepting the other person sees it as blasphemy is not equivalent to accepting it a blasphemy oneself. And that’s not subjective opinion, it’s a hard truth.
I agree. Even two deeply religious people could consider the other blasphemous because their beliefs differ fundamentally. Blasphemy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It's clearly subjective, and should be taken just as seriously as someone's opinion on beauty.
ETA: The only reason this might be hard for someone to wrap their head around this is because religions teach people that blasphemy is one of the worst sins. They have to do that because if you're trying to keep a bogus belief system alive, threatening a person's eternal salvation and scaring the crap out of them for not believing or making fun of it might be a good way to protect it.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
I tend to agree that “blasphemy” exists only in the mind of the believer. If a non believer “blasphemes” in the eyes of a believer, then that blasphemy only exists in the life of the believer. The non believer hasn’t blasphemed anything in their eyes because they haven’t rubbished anything that they believe in. The non believer may no upfront that what they are about to say will be seen as blasphemy by the person to whom they are making the comment. But accepting the other person sees it as blasphemy is not equivalent to accepting it a blasphemy oneself. And that’s not subjective opinion, it’s a hard truth.
I agree. Even two deeply religious people could consider the other blasphemous because their beliefs differ fundamentally. Blasphemy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. It's clearly subjective, and should be taken just as seriously as someone's opinion on beauty.
ETA: The only reason this might be hard for someone to wrap their head around this is because religions teach people that blasphemy is one of the worst sins. They have to do that because if you're trying to keep a bogus belief system alive, threatening a person's eternal salvation and scaring the crap out of them for not believing or making fun of it might be a good way to protect it.
I find it interesting that a person can be viewed as being blasphemous even if what they are saying is factually and objectively true. Religions are afraid of factual, objective truth, because it doesn’t jibe with what they want to promote as their religious truth. Calling the LDS Prophet a liar and a fraudster would be considered blasphemous by a devout Mormon. And yet such an accusation is without doubt factually, and objectively true.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I find it interesting that a person can be viewed as being blasphemous even if what they are saying is factually and objectively true. Religions are afraid of factual, objective truth, because it doesn’t jibe with what they want to promote as their religious truth. Calling the LDS Prophet a liar and a fraudster would be considered blasphemous by a devout Mormon. And yet such an accusation is without doubt factually, and objectively true.
Yes, well a charge of blasphemy from a religious person is often just as important and serious as a charge of "fake news" from Trump. Neither are meaningful or important sentiments, just denials of reality in most cases. They're rantings inspired by lunacy.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
During the 1000 year reign Satan will be in prison.
After the 1000 years are over, Satan will be let loose to deceive the nations.
Sadly,mankind will rebel, which shows the wickedness of the human heart.
During the 1000 year reign Satan will be in prison.
After the 1000 years are over, Satan will be let loose to deceive the nations.
Sadly,mankind will rebel, which shows the wickedness of the human heart.
I do not know if you mean this but it sounds like God spends a thousand years trying to reform the human heart but God's effort is a complete failure.
Quantum, perhaps your words are leaving something out.
