神说，你可以把周边的国家的人民当奴隶，是不？ 神没说，你不可把周边的人当奴隶如同你不可把你同国人当奴隶，对不？ 这是不是“slavery based on race”啊？
至于同国人么，把他们的耳朵扎个洞之后他们就是永远的奴隶了， 当然也就可以买卖了，
你到底要表达啥啊？再问一遍，你怎么知道蓄奴是不对的？我们人类的法律告诉你的？还是你的圣经告诉你的？
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 You do read a lot. What is the idea behind this? Does God say go and enslave all other nations? God said be kind to your own country men. So that even though they work for the master, but they are still free and : not sold.
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 God said you may do that. You understand it as you should do that? By the way, this post is about Genesis 1. You are the one to blame. If you want to discuss slavery, make your own post.
你应该这么辩： 这个不能俺字面解释， May 在这儿就是 "are not allowed"的意思，这样，认谁都得shut up.
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 God said you may do that. You understand it as you should do that? By the way, this post is about Genesis 1. You are the one to blame. If you want to discuss slavery, make your own post.
But if you do keep slaves today, shall god permit it?
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 God permit slavery. That's why it existed in history. But, it doesn't mean that we as Christians should promote slavery today.
We have better society now, we go broke, we file banckrupcy.
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 God permit slavery. That's why it existed in history. But, it doesn't mean that we as Christians should promote slavery today.
We have better society now, we go broke, we file banckrupcy.
The question is not whether you do or not. It is according the bible, god still permits slavery. That is the real ridiculous thing-- you are using a 2000 year old bullshit as your faith/belief/mortal base...
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 Why should I do that? Don't imaging these ridiculous things. We are at 21st century. It's against the law in US.
【 在 biokold (kold) 的大作中提到: 】 The question is not whether you do or not. It is according the bible, god : still permits slavery. That is the real ridiculous thing-- you are using a 2000 year old bullshit as your faith/belief/mortal base...
Please see my reply to zhaowendao's post. These laws are not bad at that time. You got to see those law in the historical context. They were real laws.
What we mean God's law never abolish, you need to find timeless truth from the old laws and use them today. Not just copy the law.
【 在 biokold (kold) 的大作中提到: 】 Is there any logic in your brain? We are not talking (once again) about whether you keep slaves or not. We are talking about your moral base/law. If a civil law permits slavery today, we call it en evil law. Bible permits slavery today, so we call it an evil book. Even if no christian keeps slaves. Understand?
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 Please see my reply to zhaowendao's post. These laws are not bad at that time. You got to see those law in the historical context. They were real laws. 主人打死奴隶，只要不是当场死亡，主人不受惩罚。什么样的“historical context”能让这样混帐的法律“not bad”？说说看！
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 God permit slavery. That's why it existed in history. But, it doesn't mean that we as Christians should promote slavery today.
We have better society now, we go broke, we file banckrupcy.
I don't think it is about moral. It's like do you think owning a gun is moral? It was a fact. One can be righteous regardless his social status (a slave or a slave owner).
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 I don't think it is about moral. It's like do you think owning a gun is moral? yes. Owning gun can be moral. You really can say permitting slavery is moral? It was a fact. One can be righteous regardless his social status (a slave or a slave owner). No, you can't. You enslave other human beings, then you're not righteous. How twisted or evil is your mind to not understand this?
What if both the slave and slave owner ok with the relation.
Slavery really happened in history. Do we have agreement on this?
【 在 Eloihim (真神) 的大作中提到: 】 yes. Owning gun can be moral. You really can say permitting slavery is moral? or No, you can't. You enslave other human beings, then you're not righteous . I don't like enslave others. You are thinking for me again. How twisted or evil is your mind to not understand this?
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 What if both the slave and slave owner ok with the relation. Slavery really happened in history. Do we have agreement on this? . I don't like enslave others. You are thinking for me again.
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 What if both the slave and slave owner ok with the relation. Of course not. For example, if A wants to kill B and B is ok to be killed by A, then you'reok for A to kill B? You think again. Slavery really happened in history. Do we have agreement on this? Of course. Are you saying anything happened must be a moral thing to do? . I don't like enslave others. You are thinking for me again. Why not? Why don't you enslave others? Because of what?
【 在 Eloihim (真神) 的大作中提到: 】 Of course not. For example, if A wants to kill B and B is ok to be killed by A, then you're ok for A to kill B? You think again. Yes, I believe it is ok. They can go to public sea and do that. Of course. Are you saying anything happened must be a moral thing to do? It's not about moral. It's a fact. Supposing 100 years later, we are in communist society, does it mean capitalism is evil? No. there are evil and righteous in any society, until Jesus Christ's second coming. Why not? Why don't you enslave others? Because of what? Because I don't want to enslave others. I don't know why. It's just not in my mind.
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 re Yes, I believe it is ok. They can go to public sea and do that. Really? I'm speechless. It's not about moral. It's a fact. Supposing 100 years later, we are in communist society, does it mean capitalism is evil? No. there are evil and righteous in any society, until Jesus Christ's second coming. I already think capitalism is evil. Because I don't want to enslave others. I don't know why. It's just not in my mind. Because enslave other would cause you what? feel guilty? Let's dig into this. I know you know why. Just say it.
I never think of this. But I don't get why this is anything important. Because ideas of individual Christians on some controversial topics may vary.
I am sure those who ask for euthanasia must be suffering a lot. It could be physical or psychological. Mostly are psychological, because physical pains can be reduced by pain killer. In that case, I encourage this person to put his faith on Christ and ask for comfort from God.
If one is a vegetable, his relatives may also suffer financially and emotionally, they should make a wise decision based on their conditions. I also encourage them to ask for wisdom from God. I think it is fine to either unplug or keep vegetable alive. Think about 100 years ago, a vegetable proabably dies much earlier. I don't think it violates any Christian teaching.
It's just my opinion. I would like see what other people think about this issue.
【 在 Eloihim (真神) 的大作中提到: 】 Never mind then. 另外問一下，你覺得兩方自願的話人殺人沒關係， 你贊成安樂死嗎？
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 I never think of this. But I don't get why this is anything important. Because ideas of individual Christians on some controversial topics may vary. I am sure those who ask for euthanasia must be suffering a lot. It could be physical or psychological. Mostly are psychological, because physical pains can be reduced by pain killer. In that case, I encourage this person to put his faith on Christ and ask for comfort from God. If one is a vegetable, his relatives may also suffer financially and emotionally, they should make a wise decision based on their conditions. I also encourage them to ask for wisdom from God. I think it is fine to either unplug or keep vegetable alive. Think about 100 years ago, a vegetable ...................
tn The Hebrew term תְּהוֹם (tÿhom, “deep”) refers to the watery deep, the salty ocean – especially the primeval ocean that surrounds and underlies the earth (see Gen 7:11).
sn The watery deep. In the Babylonian account of creation Marduk killed the goddess Tiamat (the salty sea) and used her carcass to create heaven and earth. The form of the Hebrew word for “deep” is distinct enough from the name “Tiamat” to deny direct borrowing; however, it is possible that there is a polemical stress here. Ancient Israel does not see the ocean as a powerful deity to be destroyed in creation, only a force of nature that can be controlled by God.
【 在 JasonYang (Jason) 的大作中提到: 】 tn The Hebrew term תְּהוֹם (t&# 255; ;hom, “deep”) refers to the watery deep, the salty ocean – especially the primeval ocean that surrounds and underlies the earth (see Gen 7:11). sn The watery deep. In the Babylonian account of creation Marduk killed the goddess Tiamat (the salty sea) and used her carcass to create heaven and earth. The form of the Hebrew word for “deep” is distinct enough from the name “Tiamat” to deny direct borrowing; however, it is possible that there is a polemical stress here. Ancient Israel does not see the ocean as a powerful deity to be destroyed in creation, only a force of nature that can be controlled by God. ...................
God did not ask anyone to enslave others.
Does God say go and enslave all other nations?
God said be kind to your own country men.
So that even though they work for the master, but they are still free and
not sold.
神没说，你不可把周边的人当奴隶如同你不可把你同国人当奴隶，对不？
这是不是“slavery based on race”啊？
至于同国人么，把他们的耳朵扎个洞之后他们就是永远的奴隶了， 当然也就可以买卖了，
你到底要表达啥啊？再问一遍，你怎么知道蓄奴是不对的？我们人类的法律告诉你的？还是你的圣经告诉你的？
You understand it as you should do that?
By the way, this post is about Genesis 1.
You are the one to blame.
If you want to discuss slavery, make your own post.
blame什么？没看懂你要表达啥意思， 如果你的意思是你的帖子里不准人类讨论的话
，麻烦移驾自己开个俱乐部什么的，公开版面你无权干涉任何人的言论自由，明白不？
你怎么知道蓄奴是不对的？我们人类的法律告诉你的？还是你的圣经告诉你的？
你做不做是一回事， 但这么做的人绝对没错。也就是说蓄奴是没错的。
你应该这么辩： 这个不能俺字面解释， May 在这儿就是 "are not allowed"的意思，这样，认谁都得shut up.
That's why it existed in history.
But, it doesn't mean that we as Christians should promote slavery today.
We have better society now, we go broke, we file banckrupcy.
出埃及记
21:2 你若买希伯来人作奴仆，他必服事你六年，第七年他可以自由，白白地出去。
21:3 他若孤身来，就可以孤身去，他若有妻，他的妻就可以同他出去。
21:4 他主人若给他妻子，妻子给他生了儿子或女儿，妻子和儿女要归主人，他要独自
出去。
21:5 倘或奴仆明说，我爱我的主人和我的妻子儿女，不愿意自由出去。
21:6 他的主人就要带他到审判官那里（审判官或作神下同），又要带他到门前，靠近
门框，用锥子穿他的耳朵，他就永远服事主人。
Don't imaging these ridiculous things. We are at 21st century.
It's against the law in US.
嗄得的 permission你扬杰生想废么？
still permits slavery. That is the real ridiculous thing-- you are using a 2000 year old bullshit as your faith/belief/mortal base...
Why don't you do that?
We are not talking (once again) about whether you keep slaves or not.
We are talking about your moral base/law.
If a civil law permits slavery today, we call it en evil law.
Bible permits slavery today, so we call it an evil book. Even if no
christian keeps slaves.
Understand?
These laws are not bad at that time. You got to see those law in the
historical context. They were real laws.
What we mean God's law never abolish, you need to find timeless truth from
the old laws and use them today. Not just copy the law.
還是你覺得蓄奴是合乎道德的？
It's like do you think owning a gun is moral?
It was a fact. One can be righteous regardless his social status (a slave or a slave owner).
Slavery really happened in history. Do we have agreement on this?
更简练。
-JasonYang
Because ideas of individual Christians on some controversial topics may vary.
I am sure those who ask for euthanasia must be suffering a lot. It could be physical or psychological. Mostly are psychological, because physical pains can be reduced by pain killer. In that case, I encourage this person to put his faith on Christ and ask for comfort from God.
If one is a vegetable, his relatives may also suffer financially and
emotionally, they should make a wise decision based on their conditions. I
also encourage them to ask for wisdom from God. I think it is fine to either unplug or keep vegetable alive. Think about 100 years ago, a vegetable
proabably dies much earlier. I don't think it violates any Christian
teaching.
It's just my opinion. I would like see what other people think about this
issue.
條件？ 你要不要修正一下你前面說的？ 還是要修正這貼說的？
创造万物的上帝耶和华（I am whoever am)是一个集合名词，包括：摩西，耶稣，佛陀，道祖，盘古，女娲娘娘，玛丽亚， 观音， 孔子等等 十方三世一切诸佛。
只要虔诚的拜一个都可以。
南无顶礼十方三世一切诸佛！
自然界的东西都是神的创造物。
但是，把摩西说成是上帝的一部分是不符合圣经的。
你要把摩西算成上帝的一部分，
请提供圣经经文的依据，谢谢。
sn The watery deep. In the Babylonian account of creation Marduk killed the goddess Tiamat (the salty sea) and used her carcass to create heaven and
earth. The form of the Hebrew word for “deep” is distinct enough from the name “Tiamat” to deny direct borrowing; however, it is possible that there is a polemical stress here. Ancient Israel does not see the ocean as a
powerful deity to be destroyed in creation, only a force of nature that can be controlled by God.
不是direct borrowing.
另外，in the beginning，并不“严格地”等于时间原点。
我们随便叙述一件事情的时候都有可能用in the beginning。
所以后面的推论，很难说不是为了信而信。
——这就和初中课文理解“一棵是枣树，另一棵也是枣树”一样。
当时人的科学水平低下，那可以用基础的语言形容个大概，而不是错误地形容。
对于一个严谨的科学家来说，在有争议的问题上至少可以说各派的观点是如何的。
而且科学家并不一直是对的，因为宇宙对于他来说不是全部可知的；
但是对于你的主（如果有的话），宇宙是全部可知的，而他又是完美的，
完全没有理由在讲述这个宇宙的时候犯下这么严重的错误。
与其说为了让当时的人能理解而说错，不如当时人的认知有问题而编错更好理解。