NationStates Jolt Archive

I'd just like to start off by saying that I do not hate Christians, I merely enjoy the thought process I must take to prove them wrong. Heck, I'm Christian, so PLEASE, don't say I'm racist or something... (you guys are known for it!)

With that said I'd like to find wholes in your logic. The first one being the Bible.

The Bible is the word of God. The New Testament out dates the old one, but that shouldn't matter, everything which is in the Bible is the 'Word of God'. Right? If so, then as soon as slavery was abolished, one of two things occured. One, God was named a lier. Two, we are all greater sinners. Or three, the path which seems to be the only credible one, or the one that I think you all would WANT to believe. (not to say it's true, but we all pick our own beliefs. For example, If God came down here and said slavery was right, not many people would follow him, so he wouldn't be our God. Maybe the Devil wouldn't be that bad!) Path three, anyway, says that God wants us to go on a journey, and step by step, he is showing us the way. In a manner of speaking, we are walking and he is guiding. If this is so, and we learn different things as we go, then everything in the Bible can and should be studied, questioned and possibly changed. Therefore Homosexuality should be studied and if we are going to take the path of such, no Christian who hasn't a problem with changing slavery, should use the Bible as a defence for not changing homosexuality.

Ok, number two is shorter. The Pope is infallible. He communicates with God and God tells him what to do, what to speak of, and what to change. Right? If so, and free will is also still in place, then the Pope could refuse to listen or obey God. He could still go to Hell and all of that good stuff, but he would still change the way the religion runs. If you can't accept that, then there is no free will. If that's so, then why need a Pope? Oh, right, lol, no free will. Forgot!

Tell me what you think!

I'm not a Christian, rather I have something to say.

Since when has logic played a role in a human's life?

When you love someone you cannot have, that's illogical.
When you fight a battle you know you cannot win, it's illogical.
When you debate a debate you know no one will agree to, it's illogical.
etc.

I mean really....

Since when has logic played a role in a human's life?
Since logic was invented.

It's sort of like the question: Since when have screwdrivers played a role in a human's life?

Answer: Since they were invented.

Logic is just a tool like many others. Just as it isn't always helpful to use a screwdriver on some problems, logic isn't always helpful, but there are many situations where it is helpful. Personally I find I use logic far more often than I use screwdrivers.

Umm that's about the stupidest, most uninformed argument against christianity I've ever heard.

And that's saying something. It just didn't make sense, son. :confused:

Umm that's about the stupidest, most uninformed argument against christianity I've ever heard.

And that's saying something. It just didn't make sense, son. :confused:

Glad to see you've shown your ultimate knowledge in the subject and formulated a well produced response to discredit my former claims.

BOY was I stupid. :rolleyes:

Omg, It's true! Christians can't even argue AGAINST Christianity... :eek:

Glad to see you've shown your ultimate knowledge in the subject and formulated a well produced response to discredit my former claims.

BOY was I stupid. :rolleyes:
Dude, don't even think you can know more about the bible than I do. I go to a christian university and have taken Numerous in depth bible courses.

Trust me when I say, your argument makes no sense, therefore I do not feel I need to go deeper in depth as to debunk it.

*rough paraphrasing*
1) Bible changing with regards to slavery and homosexuality
2) Pope being infallible

Tell me what you think!

1) As far as the Bible changes as per slavery, there seems to be a serious shift between the laws institued in Exodus (which were much more humane than the slavery that we are familiar with) and Paul's letter to Philemon. However, there is a pretty consistant line between the treatment of homosexuals between the books of Moses and Paul's letter to the Romans. In the former, homosexuals are to be killed. In the latter, they are placed int eh same ranks as murderers and idoloters. Some things change, others don't. A careful reading of Scripture can tell us which is which.

2) Honestly, I don't think that the Pope is infallible, so this doesn't quite apply. However, the basic idea still holds merit. Free will still holds, and what a person does can change the course of an entire group, including an entire religion.

While I respect your views, I must wholeheartedly disagree with it. I'm not a Christian, but I have studied and continue to study the scriptures of the worlds major religions. To the best of my knowledge, the Bible is not the 'word of God'. The Qu'ran on the other hand is the word of God, spoken in the laguage of Arabic (how lucky). The Bible is broken in two parts, the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament is actually the Hebrew Bible, or the Tanakh, which is broken into three parts: the Torah (the law or the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im (the Prophets), and Kethuvim (the Writings). The New Testament wasn't compiled until the 8th century in the year of our Lord (or CE). There were several prophets, but only a select few were choosen to be placed in the Bible. The New Testament is written to persuade and convert the reader on the spot, an essay of sorts. So the New Testament, or the Christian Bible, is not the word of God per se. Some demoniations believe that Jesus was God incarnate, in which case, Jesus' words would be that of God. With your sociopolitical points that you bring up, I would see some, perhaps most, Christians agreeing with you in so far that the Bible doesn't evolve, but the lessons in it change with an understanding of ourselves. After all, far be it for a true Christian to judge another human being, that's not their job, but the job of God to judge. Jesus, afterall, was seen with all sorts of seedy people, prostitutes and lepurs. That isn't always the case because human beings, after all, make mistakes.

The Pope is only in the Catholic demoniation and not representative of all Christianity, but I'll still address your point. I'm not sure as to the Pope being infallible, because he is a human being, but he is God's representative on Earth. The Pope could choose to disobey God, so free will does exist. I'm not sure for the exact reason for needing a Pope, based off of the Catholic interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, you'll need to ask a practicing (or not) Catholic on that.

Hope that addresses your questions, but I don't see how they 'debunk Christianity'. Could you expand a little more on that for me?

Dude, don't even think you can know more about the bible than I do. I go to a christian university and have taken Numerous in depth bible courses.

Trust me when I say, your argument makes no sense, therefore I do not feel I need to go deeper in depth as to debunk it.

You need a university to train you in reading the Bible? I wasn't aware it was full of that much gibberish.

Infadels, behold the truth!

http://www.venganza.org/

Behold your creator, in all his glory!!

*rough paraphrasing*


1) As far as the Bible changes as per slavery, there seems to be a serious shift between the laws institued in Exodus (which were much more humane than the slavery that we are familiar with) and Paul's letter to Philemon. However, there is a pretty consistant line between the treatment of homosexuals between the books of Moses and Paul's letter to the Romans. In the former, homosexuals are to be killed. In the latter, they are placed int eh same ranks as murderers and idoloters. Some things change, others don't. A careful reading of Scripture can tell us which is which.

2) Honestly, I don't think that the Pope is infallible, so this doesn't quite apply. However, the basic idea still holds merit. Free will still holds, and what a person does can change the course of an entire group, including an entire religion.

I thank you for your support on the second topic, and on the first, I'd like to clear up that it really isn't important whether or not slavery is right, wrong, or half humane, the point is, the Word of God was changed.

ok, I"ll try this again...

I'd just like to start off by saying that I do not hate Christians, I merely enjoy the thought process I must take to prove them wrong. Heck, I'm Christian, so PLEASE, don't say I'm racist or something... (you guys are known for it!)

With that said I'd like to find wholes in your logic. The first one being the Bible.!
First off... you start off witha contradiction. You claim to be a christian, yet you refer to christians as "them"...

The Bible is the word of God. The New Testament out dates the old one, but that shouldn't matter, everything which is in the Bible is the 'Word of God'. Right? If so, then as soon as slavery was abolished, one of two things occured. One, God was named a lier. Two, we are all greater sinners. Or three, the path which seems to be the only credible one, or the one that I think you all would WANT to believe. (not to say it's true, but we all pick our own beliefs. For example, If God came down here and said slavery was right, not many people would follow him, so he wouldn't be our God. Maybe the Devil wouldn't be that bad!) Path three, anyway, says that God wants us to go on a journey, and step by step, he is showing us the way. In a manner of speaking, we are walking and he is guiding. If this is so, and we learn different things as we go, then everything in the Bible can and should be studied, questioned and possibly changed. Therefore Homosexuality should be studied and if we are going to take the path of such, no Christian who hasn't a problem with changing slavery, should use the Bible as a defence for not changing homosexuality.

This is almost undicipherable as written. Perhaps posting the passages of the bible that you are refering to. Clean this up and I would be happy to discuss the "wholes in your logic".

Ok, number two is shorter. The Pope is infallible. He communicates with God and God tells him what to do, what to speak of, and what to change. Right? If so, and free will is also still in place, then the Pope could refuse to listen or obey God. He could still go to Hell and all of that good stuff, but he would still change the way the religion runs. If you can't accept that, then there is no free will. If that's so, then why need a Pope? Oh, right, lol, no free will. Forgot!

Tell me what you think!

This last paragraph reinforces the contradiction you made in your opening statement. If you really were a christian, you would understand the difference between Christians as a whole and the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope.

The Pope isn't infallible, he is simply a man. No one is infallible except Jesus. The Pope doesn't speak for God, he is simply the highest ranking member in one particular religions hirarchy. And since you don't know your history either, there have been numerous Popes that turned away from God and his teachings (the crusades, the antipopes etc) yet the Roman Catholic Church continued.

Do some more research.

The New Testament wasn't compiled until the 8th century in the year of our Lord (or CE). There were several prophets, but only a select few were choosen to be placed in the Bible. The New Testament is written to persuade and convert the reader on the spot, an essay of sorts. So the New Testament, or the Christian Bible, is not the word of God per se. Some demoniations believe that Jesus was God incarnate, in which case, Jesus' words would be that of God. With your sociopolitical points that you bring up, I would see some, perhaps most, Christians agreeing with you in so far that the Bible doesn't evolve, but the lessons in it change with an understanding of ourselves. After all, far be it for a true Christian to judge another human being, that's not their job, but the job of God to judge. Jesus, afterall, was seen with all sorts of seedy people, prostitutes and lepurs. That isn't always the case because human beings, after all, make mistakes.

The Pope is only in the Catholic demoniation and not representative of all Christianity, but I'll still address your point. I'm not sure as to the Pope being infallible, because he is a human being, but he is God's representative on Earth. The Pope could choose to disobey God, so free will does exist. I'm not sure for the exact reason for needing a Pope, based off of the Catholic interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, you'll need to ask a practicing (or not) Catholic on that.

Hope that addresses your questions, but I don't see how they 'debunk Christianity'. Could you expand a little more on that for me?[/QUOTE]
The new testiment was written from roughly 45 AD to 90 AD. It was all finalized and brought together around 389 A.D. (I think that was the right number, late 300 I know though) Plus, it was written mostly as letters of guidance in christian living to churches and individuals of the day. Not to instantly convert anybody.

Infadels, behold the truth!

http://www.venganza.org/

Behold your creator, in all his glory!!
I've been a SAMist or (FSMist) for two months now and can say with all certainity it has improved my bowel function.

Dude, don't even think you can know more about the bible than I do. I go to a christian university and have taken Numerous in depth bible courses.

Interesting. Wouldn't the fact that you go to a christian university be likely to decrease your understanding of the bible? For example I doubt that a madrass would be a good place to get an understanding of the Koran (please forgive phonetic spelling). Do you think you'd understand the bible better if you didn't go to a christian university, or do you think a christian universtity gives some advantages?

You need a university to train you in reading the Bible? I wasn't aware it was full of that much gibberish.

Yes because beliecve it or not, some people take their religion seriously. :eek:

It also provides me with the ability to defend my beliefs in a manner that makes you look like a total n00b. :fluffle:

While I respect your views, I must wholeheartedly disagree with it. I'm not a Christian, but I have studied and continue to study the scriptures of the worlds major religions. To the best of my knowledge, the Bible is not the 'word of God'. The Qu'ran on the other hand is the word of God, spoken in the laguage of Arabic (how lucky). The Bible is broken in two parts, the Old and New Testament. The Old Testament is actually the Hebrew Bible, or the Tanakh, which is broken into three parts: the Torah (the law or the Five Books of Moses), Nevi'im (the Prophets), and Kethuvim (the Writings). The New Testament wasn't compiled until the 8th century in the year of our Lord (or CE). There were several prophets, but only a select few were choosen to be placed in the Bible. The New Testament is written to persuade and convert the reader on the spot, an essay of sorts. So the New Testament, or the Christian Bible, is not the word of God per se. Some demoniations believe that Jesus was God incarnate, in which case, Jesus' words would be that of God. With your sociopolitical points that you bring up, I would see some, perhaps most, Christians agreeing with you in so far that the Bible doesn't evolve, but the lessons in it change with an understanding of ourselves. After all, far be it for a true Christian to judge another human being, that's not their job, but the job of God to judge. Jesus, afterall, was seen with all sorts of seedy people, prostitutes and lepurs. That isn't always the case because human beings, after all, make mistakes.

The Pope is only in the Catholic demoniation and not representative of all Christianity, but I'll still address your point. I'm not sure as to the Pope being infallible, because he is a human being, but he is God's representative on Earth. The Pope could choose to disobey God, so free will does exist. I'm not sure for the exact reason for needing a Pope, based off of the Catholic interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, you'll need to ask a practicing (or not) Catholic on that.

Hope that addresses your questions, but I don't see how they 'debunk Christianity'. Could you expand a little more on that for me?

Debunk Christianity is just a title I call it, because it's something I like to think. It's like a puzzle.. anyway, I'll take your first point with a glass of water because I don't know as much as I would like to when it comes to ... what ever that was lol, but someday I will!

Anyway, in your second point you said that free will does exist. How do you know? I'd like to know why very few ministers, priests, or leaders of the Christian Church say "I don't know.". They all seem to have it so down pat, but really... If I was up there... I'd be saying I don't know a ton of times. It's all interpretation, and after 2000 years of it, I fear we've gone astray, or maybe more focused, but either way, we're lost.

I'll double check on that. You might be right about it being in the 4th century, but I'm going off of memory. Agree with the last part, but I'll have to agree to disagree on the "insta-conversion".

Interesting. Wouldn't the fact that you go to a christian university be likely to decrease your understanding of the bible? For example I doubt that a madrass would be a good place to get an understanding of the Koran (please forgive phonetic spelling). Do you think you'd understand the bible better if you didn't go to a christian university, or do you think a christian universtity gives some advanatages?

I take classes on the bible, but what they do is teach me to look deeply into what's written and interpret it. Plus provide a history of it and backgrounds etc. So yes, I do believe I have a better understanding of the bible than I would not being here.

Yes because beliecve it or not, some people take their religion seriously. :eek:

It also provides me with the ability to defend my beliefs in a manner that makes you look like a total n00b. :fluffle:

Well noob away, you're threats are very boring to me. My statement was merely stating the fact that I don't need to attend your school to read and interpret the Bible.

I thank you for your support on the second topic, and on the first, I'd like to clear up that it really isn't important whether or not slavery is right, wrong, or half humane, the point is, the Word of God was changed.

Exactly what are you trying to prove here? That somebody edited the texts to their likings? Sorry, but the archeaologists would disagree with you there.

I'm not saying that right and wrong have changed, but that what they were held accountable for changed. Rather pointless to make a rule that people won't follow, right? That's the logic behind the first one. The second one shows us what we are really striving for. It took most of the Christian world another 18 centuries to finally get there.

I take classes on the bible, but what they do is teach me to look deeply into what's written and interpret it. Plus provide a history of it and backgrounds etc. So yes, I do believe I have a better understanding of the bible than I would not being here.

Do you assume it is a set of documents written by people, or do you allow for the existance of supernatural agency in you analysis?

With free will, you can't really prove, with unresonable doubt, that is exists - it requires some faith. I'd assume that any religious leader wouldn't say "I don't know" simply because all they need to know is that it is the work of God. If God is infalliable, what more do you need to know?

Exactly what are you trying to prove here? That somebody edited the texts to their likings? Sorry, but the archeaologists would disagree with you there.

I'm not saying that right and wrong have changed, but that what they were held accountable for changed. Rather pointless to make a rule that people won't follow, right? That's the logic behind the first one. The second one shows us what we are really striving for. It took most of the Christian world another 18 centuries to finally get there.

I'm going under the assumption that God changed that word, not the inhabitants of this Earth.

I don't really understand the second part of your post, but I am stating that right and wrong have changed, if that helps you to understand me.

I'm going under the assumption that God changed that word, not the inhabitants of this Earth.

I don't really understand the second part of your post, but I am stating that right and wrong have changed, if that helps you to understand me.

Ah. I am disagreeing and stating that right and wrong have not changed.

Well noob away, you're threats are very boring to me. My statement was merely stating the fact that I don't need to attend your school to read and interpret the Bible.
That was more just a joke than making fun of you...

Ah. I am disagreeing and stating that right and wrong have not changed.

Why?

I'm not a Christian, rather I have something to say.

Since when has logic played a role in a human's life?

When you love someone you cannot have, that's illogical.
When you fight a battle you know you cannot win, it's illogical.
When you debate a debate you know no one will agree to, it's illogical.
etc.

I mean really....

I like that ^_^

I'd just like to start off by saying that I do not hate Christians,

Oh no, no of course not! Hating is wrong. No good person hates, and no one at all ever admits to hate, because it is wrong.

I merely enjoy the thought process I must take to prove them wrong. Heck, I'm Christian, so PLEASE, don't say I'm racist or something... (you guys are known for it!)

With that said I'd like to find wholes in your logic. The first one being the Bible.

If you are a Christian, why do you refer to other Christians as "you"? Shouldn't you say "WE are known for it" and "OUR logic"? Still, I guess I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you really are a Christian and have decided to constructively challenge other Christians by posting two arguements against Christianity on a forum that is read by a multitude of non-Christians and calling it "Debunking Christianity".

The Bible is the word of God. The New Testament out dates the old one, but that shouldn't matter, everything which is in the Bible is the 'Word of God'. Right? If so, then as soon as slavery was abolished, one of two things occured. One, God was named a lier. Two, we are all greater sinners. Or three, the path which seems to be the only credible one, or the one that I think you all would WANT to believe. (not to say it's true, but we all pick our own beliefs. For example, If God came down here and said slavery was right, not many people would follow him, so he wouldn't be our God. Maybe the Devil wouldn't be that bad!) Path three, anyway, says that God wants us to go on a journey, and step by step, he is showing us the way. In a manner of speaking, we are walking and he is guiding. If this is so, and we learn different things as we go, then everything in the Bible can and should be studied, questioned and possibly changed. Therefore Homosexuality should be studied and if we are going to take the path of such, no Christian who hasn't a problem with changing slavery, should use the Bible as a defence for not changing homosexuality.

The Bible never says that slavery is okay. It gives commands on how masters ought to treat their slaves and on how slaves ought to act toward their masters, but to say that it condones slavery is like saying that Jesus condoned violent beatings when he told people to turn the other cheek. The commands given in the Bible are not about how a society ought to be run (other than a few of the old testament laws which applied only to Isreal); they are about how individuals ought to act. I don't know why Jesus never forbade slavery, and I also don't know why he didn't forbid a few other things as well, but it seems that his teachings focused on the status of a person's soul and the location in which they would be spending the afterlife, not one how a society should be run.

The Old Testament ceremonial laws were repealed in a clear revelation (Acts 10:9-16); the laws against homosexuality were confirmed in the New Testament (I Corintians 6:9&10) and still stand today.

Ok, number two is shorter. The Pope is infallible. He communicates with God and God tells him what to do, what to speak of, and what to change. Right? If so, and free will is also still in place, then the Pope could refuse to listen or obey God. He could still go to Hell and all of that good stuff, but he would still change the way the religion runs. If you can't accept that, then there is no free will. If that's so, then why need a Pope? Oh, right, lol, no free will. Forgot!

Tell me what you think!

Only Catholics believe the Pope is infallible, and free will is not universally accepted among Christians either. I guess the Pope could make himself go to hell if he wanted to, but I'm not a Catholic, so I'm not going to comment any farther on this point.

Exactly what are you trying to prove here? That somebody edited the texts to their likings? Sorry, but the archeaologists would disagree with you there.

really? would they? I am under the impression that the bible that you read, is very much changed from what was written. The Jews removed books they didn't like when they made their version first. Then the Catholic church removed even more in order to assert their strength over the faiths of old. Remove a few books of the apostles, write in a devil, call it Catholicism.

Why?

I am assuming that God does not change. As the ultimate arbiter/decreer of right and wrong, His standards don't change either. However, what He will let us get away with will change. Jesus alludes to this when talking to the Pharisees about divorce. He says that Moses (meaning the laws) allowed them to divorce because their hearts were hard. However, He pointed out the true point of marriage by referencing Genesis and the first couple. So, while the nature of marriage and right relationships involved there did not change, what people could get away with did. Other things, like with slavery, did as well. Other things, like homosexuality, did not.

that's not true, the books that were ommiteds were omitted because they were either not belived to be true or had no real signifigance. I could go into details about the New Testament Canon. Basically, you view omition as bad, but it was a well thought out process. They didn't do it necessarily because they didn't like what was being taught, but because what was being taught/ writen went against jesus' teachings.

really? would they? I am under the impression that the bible that you read, is very much changed from what was written. The Jews removed books they didn't like when they made their version first. Then the Catholic church removed even more in order to assert their strength over the faiths of old. Remove a few books of the apostles, write in a devil, call it Catholicism.

That is incorrect. While I am not sure about the treatment of the Old Testament by the Jews, I am very aware of the New. The Bible was finally closed by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. What they accepted as the Canon was what you see in most Bibles today. The extra books that the Catholics have weren't officially added until the Council of Trent (unsure of year, but just after the Protestant Reformation). What was accepted at Nicea was simply what was accepted by the vast majority of the churches at the time. Even a reading of some of the later epistles can show that there were books written that were already accepted as Scripture, such as Second Peter in reference to Paul's letters. Nicea changed little, but made everything official.

As far as other records, the New Testament was written between roughly 50 and 90 AD. The oldest copies that we have of those books are from about 110 to 120 AD. Even at that late a date, the events depicted would have been easy to refute if they were false. First of second generation decendents of eyewitnesses would have been alive. Given how oral everything was (before large-scale literacy), they would have known the true stories. If the stories could have been refuted that easily, they would not have spread as quickly as they did. The vast majority of anthropologists will tell you that one generation is not enough time for ordinary events to pass into legend. This tells me that the events surrounding Christ's life were not logend.

that's not true, the books that were ommiteds were omitted because they were either not belived to be true or had no real signifigance. I could go into details about the New Testament Canon. Basically, you view omition as bad, but it was a well thought out process. They didn't do it necessarily because they didn't like what was being taught, but because what was being taught/ writen went against jesus' teachings.

Main defence I've heard connected to that was that the people cannonizing the Bible were 'inspired by God'. Not much to argue about there. Not that I believe it. *cough* FREE WILL! *cough*

I am assuming that God does not change. As the ultimate arbiter/decreer of right and wrong, His standards don't change either. However, what He will let us get away with will change. Jesus alludes to this when talking to the Pharisees about divorce. He says that Moses (meaning the laws) allowed them to divorce because their hearts were hard. However, He pointed out the true point of marriage by referencing Genesis and the first couple. So, while the nature of marriage and right relationships involved there did not change, what people could get away with did. Other things, like with slavery, did as well. Other things, like homosexuality, did not.

How do you know it didn't?

How do you know it didn't?

As I said earlier, it's based on the text. The treatment of slavery changed between the Old and New Testaments, while that of homosexuality did not. See above message for specifics.

I'd just like to start off by saying that I do not hate Christians, I merely enjoy the thought process I must take to prove them wrong. Heck, I'm Christian, so PLEASE, don't say I'm racist or something... (you guys are known for it!)

Ok.. let's see where you go...


With that said I'd like to find wholes in your logic. The first one being the Bible.

The Bible is the word of God. The New Testament out dates the old one, but that shouldn't matter, everything which is in the Bible is the 'Word of God'. Right? If so, then as soon as slavery was abolished, one of two things occured. One, God was named a lier. Two, we are all greater sinners. Or three, the path which seems to be the only credible one, or the one that I think you all would WANT to believe. (not to say it's true, but we all pick our own beliefs. For example, If God came down here and said slavery was right, not many people would follow him, so he wouldn't be our God. Maybe the Devil wouldn't be that bad!) Path three, anyway, says that God wants us to go on a journey, and step by step, he is showing us the way. In a manner of speaking, we are walking and he is guiding. If this is so, and we learn different things as we go, then everything in the Bible can and should be studied, questioned and possibly changed. Therefore Homosexuality should be studied and if we are going to take the path of such, no Christian who hasn't a problem with changing slavery, should use the Bible as a defence for not changing homosexuality.

God said slavery was "right" but "Right" in the sense of attaching a definitive "morality" to the institution. Look at the OT laws regarding slavery. It was not a familial institution, it was limiting in its applicable time (7 years), and past that was the choice of the one who was the slave (a slave could make the choice to remain with his "master" after the 7 years.... but if they did not, one could not be left in such state past that period)... Really, OT "Slavery" was a form of "indentured servitude" only extending past that where the "Slave" made the choice of remaining permanately. The Deep-South Fundamentalist CR claims of the early-american "institution of slavery" were far from completely biblical in their application. Even when Paul addressed the issue in the NT, there were very definitive sets of moral order and treatment in the master-slave relationship.


Ok, number two is shorter. The Pope is infallible. He communicates with God and God tells him what to do, what to speak of, and what to change. Right? If so, and free will is also still in place, then the Pope could refuse to listen or obey God. He could still go to Hell and all of that good stuff, but he would still change the way the religion runs. If you can't accept that, then there is no free will. If that's so, then why need a Pope? Oh, right, lol, no free will. Forgot!

This is pretty much RC specific, and non-applicable to "Christianity" as a whole. None of us Reformed, general protestants, anglicans, or Orthodox Christians believe in the Papal office, let alone Papal infalibility.