A Question Unanswered, When in Church...

[POI]

During the last year or so of attending church, I was still reluctant to ask probing questions for fear of 'rocking the boat'. In the back of each chair were suggestion/question cards, which anyone could fill out and turn in... I asked the same question, about a dozen times, and never received any type of response.

For debate:

Why would an all knowing and all loving God ever place favor towards one specific race, the Jews?

[tam]

Peace to you,

1) Just because humans do something does not mean God cannot do it. 2) It also does not mean that it is ALL that God does... 3) (if you continue with the progression, all people are invited into that covenant people, from every tribe, nation, people and tongue).

1) Sure. It would depend on what it is... And in this case, god places favor, based upon 'accidental properties'. (i.e) If you are an Israelite, you are automatically in the club. You stating, "he doesn't base his decisions on accidental properties", means you agree with me. Meaning, such a god would not base his decisions upon "accidental properties." But He apparently does.... See answer 3).

Not much more to say on this except to point you back to all the various responses and explanations that have been given you already in this thread.

2) I never made such a claim. This apparent God did many things. Some 'good', some 'bad', some 'strange', some inconsistent with logic, and maybe others.....

3) Sure, this is called the NT. Prior to Jesus, the 'members only' club, as it pertains to special favor, was for the Israelites. And you already agreed, when you stated, in post #102 --> "There is special treatment for the Israelites.".

"3" is an example of what I was referring to in "2".

Please also note though that any foreigner who went with Israel and dwelled among them was to be treated as one native-born, even receiving an inheritance in the land. Some reality AND foreshadowing for what was to come after Christ.

So it was more than Israel; it was those who joined themselves TO Israel. This is before the NT.

Regardless, the NT is part of the ongoing account.

But it has been explained to you more than once in this thread that this is not based upon mere 'accidental properties'. Nor is inheritance wrong (it would be wrong for someone to take away your inheritance - something that is yours by right. It would be wrong if you willed something that you earned to your children, and someone just took that away after you died. It would be wrong if a government decided not to honor the terms of a treaty with First Nations - a treaty that grants First Nations children certain rights - because those children were "merely born into" those nations).

So again, it is based upon faith, inheritance (something one tends to be born into), the promise to Abraham for his household/offspring, covenants (and you seem to forget that God made a covenant with the nation of Israel). Israel did not always show faith, but Abraham did always show faith (hearing, believing, AND obeying), and so the promises that God made to Abraham will be kept.

If God did not keep His promises, then how could anyone know to trust Him? A loving God would certainly keep His promises (if those promises come with conditions and the conditions are not met, then the promises need not be kept because they were conditional... but if the conditions were met, then the promises would be kept). We must be able to know that if God (and/or His Son) says something, He means what He says. So that if He (and His Son) say something, we can know it is true.

Such a God would not make such a 'promise'.

Your opinion has been noted.

Please do not pretend it is more than an opinion. You have offered nothing to back it up, except your own thoughts and feelings on the matter.


I see no reason that a God of love would not make such a promise: when you love someone, you also care for those THEY love. Do you think Abraham did not love his household, his offspring (including his children's children, etc.)? If one of his desires was that his offspring be blessed, and God loves Abraham, then why would God not make such a promise... especially knowing how it would all turn out in the end?

I know that my God does this, and He does this out of love.


In the old covenant and the new covenant, God's promises are for us and for our children. You think He does not know that we love our children (and grandchildren, etc)? That we want them to be safe? Blessed? To also receive eternal life and healing in the Kingdom? He saved Abraham and his entire household. He saved Noah and Noah's household. (neither of these is based on 'accidental properties'; both Abraham and Noah exercised faith - hearing, believing, and obeying God. In doing so, they saved their households as well). In Egypt, the blood of the lamb on the doorposts caused Death/the Destroyer to pass over the ENTIRE house. Every firstborn in that house lived. When Lot was being taken out of Sodom and Gomorrah, the angels said to him to go and get everyone in the city who belongs to him. (And yes, his wife died... but only because she did not heed the warning that had been given for their sake, and she looked back. The sight was too much for her, her body gave out, and she died. God did not kill her; he warned her not to turn back for that very reason. That doesn't mean Lot can't have her back at the resurrection though).

Also, please acknowledge what I stated in my prior response:

Imagine a rescue team is sent to help free slaves. They arrive among a group of slaves. The rescue team says, "if you can demonstrate that you are an Israelite, I'm here to free you." If you are not an Israelite, then you are SOL". The others ask why they are not to be freed as well..? One of the rescuers reply, "well, long ago, an Israelite made a pack with so-and-so." The ones left, and not rescued, scratch their heads...

There was no need to acknowledge it. It is not about slavery; it is about God protecting the people who belonged to Him (and who cried out to Him), as per the covenant He had with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

However... a great mixed multitude (non-Israelites) in Egypt left WITH Israel.


As to slavery - this was something that mankind chose as part of a way in this world. It was the way of the world according to men. MAN enslaved his fellow man - or men could sell themselves into slavery as a means to pay off debts (or to have food and shelter). Israel was permitted to sell themselves to one another in slavery to pay off debts as well, but they had to be released after so many years. If other nations wanted to make those kinds of rules for themselves, no one was stopping them. Nor did God say to Israel - you MUST own slaves.

Though God did say to Israel that the kind of fasting He desired was for them to break EVERY yoke; to set the oppressed free:

“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?
7
Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe them,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

**

“If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,
10
and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[POI]

Not much more to say on this except to point you back to all the various responses and explanations that have been given you already in this thread.

Directly right back at ya....

Please also note though that any foreigner who went with Israel and dwelled among them was to be treated as one native-born, even receiving an inheritance in the land. Some reality AND foreshadowing for what was to come after Christ.

I think you continue to miss my point, even though you 'noted' it... "God" would save, or attempt to save, all and not mention anything about Israelites in the first place.

Regardless, the NT is part of the ongoing account.

I agree. In the beginning, God placed favor to Israelites. And much later, He expanded.

Please do not pretend it is more than an opinion. You have offered nothing to back it up, except your own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

Directly right back at ya....

There was no need to acknowledge it. It is not about slavery; it is about God protecting the people who belonged to Him (and who cried out to Him), as per the covenant He had with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

So in Leviticus 25:46, there exists other qualifiers besides merely being an Israelite? If so, what are these qualifiers?

Oh, but wait... Should I just discard your entire response as a noted opinion alone? If so, why should I even engage with you at all?

[Clownboat]

1) Just because humans do something does not mean God cannot do it. 2) It also does not mean that it is ALL that God does... 3) (if you continue with the progression, all people are invited into that covenant people, from every tribe, nation, people and tongue).

1) Sure. It would depend on what it is... And in this case, god places favor, based upon 'accidental properties'. (i.e) If you are an Israelite, you are automatically in the club. You stating, "he doesn't base his decisions on accidental properties", means you agree with me. Meaning, such a god would not base his decisions upon "accidental properties." But He apparently does.... See answer 3).

2) I never made such a claim. This apparent God did many things. Some 'good', some 'bad', some 'strange', some inconsistent with logic, and maybe others.....

3) Sure, this is called the NT. Prior to Jesus, the 'members only' club, as it pertains to special favor, was for the Israelites. And you already agreed, when you stated, in post #102 --> "There is special treatment for the Israelites.".

But it has been explained to you more than once in this thread that this is not based upon mere 'accidental properties'. Nor is inheritance wrong (it would be wrong for someone to take away your inheritance - something that is yours by right. It would be wrong if you willed something that you earned to your children, and someone just took that away after you died. It would be wrong if a government decided not to honor the terms of a treaty with First Nations - a treaty that grants First Nations children certain rights - because those children were "merely born into" those nations).

So again, it is based upon faith, inheritance (something one tends to be born into), the promise to Abraham for his household/offspring, covenants (and you seem to forget that God made a covenant with the nation of Israel). Israel did not always show faith, but Abraham did always show faith (hearing, believing, AND obeying), and so the promises that God made to Abraham will be kept.

If God did not keep His promises, then how could anyone know to trust Him? A loving God would certainly keep His promises (if those promises come with conditions and the conditions are not met, then the promises need not be kept because they were conditional... but if the conditions were met, then the promises would be kept). We must be able to know that if God (and/or His Son) says something, He means what He says. So that if He (and His Son) say something, we can know it is true.

Such a God would not make such a 'promise'. This is more akin to something a human would do, not an omnibenevolent god. Please see answers 1) & 3) above.

Also, please acknowledge what I stated in my prior response:

Imagine a rescue team is sent to help free slaves. They arrive among a group of slaves. The rescue team says, "if you can demonstrate that you are an Israelite, I'm here to free you." If you are not an Israelite, then you are SOL". The others ask why they are not to be freed as well..? One of the rescuers reply, "well, long ago, an Israelite made a pack with so-and-so." The ones left, and not rescued, scratch their heads...

*******************

I'll stop here....

Just a warning POI. See Tam's signature line:
your servant and a slave of Christ,

slave
noun
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Tam has no choice as she is owned by and has been forced to obey Christ. How can the words of a slave be trusted when their obedience is being forced? Just something to keep in mind.

It would be hard for me to trust the words of someone claiming to be a slave to atheism for the same reasoning.
Would it be wise to trust the words of someone that is a slave to Trump? How could we know that they are not being forced to make their claims?

[POI]

Just a warning POI. See Tam's signature line:
your servant and a slave of Christ,

slave
noun
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Tam has no choice as she is owned by and has been forced to obey Christ. How can the words of a slave be trusted when their obedience is being forced? Just something to keep in mind.

It would be hard for me to trust the words of someone claiming to be a slave to atheism for the same reasoning.
Would it be wise to trust the words of someone that is a slave to Trump? How could we know that they are not being forced to make their claims?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Please also note though that any foreigner who went with Israel and dwelled among them was to be treated as one native-born, even receiving an inheritance in the land. Some reality AND foreshadowing for what was to come after Christ.

I think you continue to miss my point, even though you 'noted' it... "God" would save, or attempt to save, all and not mention anything about Israelites in the first place.

To the bold: Why not?

Regardless, the NT is part of the ongoing account.

I agree. In the beginning, God placed favor to Israelites. And much later, He expanded.

If you're going to go back to the 'beginning', at the very least you have to start with Abraham and the FAITH that Abraham showed.

Please do not pretend it is more than an opinion. You have offered nothing to back it up, except your own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

Directly right back at ya....

Not 'right back at ya... ".

I have backed up what I have said. I have offered explanations, including explaining how something is from love. You have simply made the claim that "an all loving" (whatever you mean by that) God would not do that, would not promise that, would not mention the Israelites, etc.

There was no need to acknowledge it. It is not about slavery; it is about God protecting the people who belonged to Him (and who cried out to Him), as per the covenant He had with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

So in Leviticus 25:46, there exists other qualifiers besides merely being an Israelite? If so, what are these qualifiers?

"It is about God protecting the people who belonged to Him (and how cried out to Him), as per the covenant He had with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

I'm not sure where you get from my post that there are other qualifiers?

Oh, but wait... Should I just discard your entire response as a noted opinion alone? If so, why should I even engage with you at all?

You are free to do as you choose, but I have not simply said "God would do that." I have explained it, given examples (not just biblical examples, but examples from our current time, as well as examples in contracts/covenants/inheritances/treaties). You do not seem to have even attempted to reason how something may or may not be from love. Or explained why inheritance rights are unjust, unloving. Or how it must be unloving or unjust that First Nations children (born into it) receive certain rights that their forefathers got for them. Or how it is unloving for God to make a promise to Abraham concerning his household/children?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Clownboat in post #113]

Just a warning POI. See Tam's signature line:
your servant and a slave of Christ,

slave
noun
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Tam has no choice as she is owned by and has been forced to obey Christ.

How can the words of a slave be trusted when their obedience is being forced? Just something to keep in mind.

Come now. Not only is this purely ad hominem, as someone who claims to have once BEEN a Christian, you must know that what you just said is false. Christ does not FORCE anyone to serve and obey Him. We choose to do so out of love; just as He made Himself a least one (taking the form of a slave), to SERVE, even though He is the King and Heir of God. He gives His will over to His Father's will. Not because He is forced to do so. But because of His love for Father.

It is about serving and love. As one who claims to have once been a Christian, surely you knew this.



Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[POI]

Peace to you,

Please also note though that any foreigner who went with Israel and dwelled among them was to be treated as one native-born, even receiving an inheritance in the land. Some reality AND foreshadowing for what was to come after Christ.

I think you continue to miss my point, even though you 'noted' it... "God" would save, or attempt to save, all and not mention anything about Israelites in the first place.

To the bold: Why not?

Regardless, the NT is part of the ongoing account.

I agree. In the beginning, God placed favor to Israelites. And much later, He expanded.

If you're going to go back to the 'beginning', at the very least you have to start with Abraham and the FAITH that Abraham showed.

Please do not pretend it is more than an opinion. You have offered nothing to back it up, except your own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

Directly right back at ya....

Not 'right back at ya... ".

I have backed up what I have said. I have offered explanations, including explaining how something is from love. You have simply made the claim that "an all loving" (whatever you mean by that) God would not do that, would not promise that, would not mention the Israelites, etc.

There was no need to acknowledge it. It is not about slavery; it is about God protecting the people who belonged to Him (and who cried out to Him), as per the covenant He had with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

So in Leviticus 25:46, there exists other qualifiers besides merely being an Israelite? If so, what are these qualifiers?

"It is about God protecting the people who belonged to Him (and how cried out to Him), as per the covenant He had with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

I'm not sure where you get from my post that there are other qualifiers?

Oh, but wait... Should I just discard your entire response as a noted opinion alone? If so, why should I even engage with you at all?

You are free to do as you choose, but I have not simply said "God would do that." I have explained it, given examples (not just biblical examples, but examples from our current time, as well as examples in contracts/covenants/inheritances/treaties). You do not seem to have even attempted to reason how something may or may not be from love. Or explained why inheritance rights are unjust, unloving. Or how it must be unloving or unjust that First Nations children (born into it) receive certain rights that their forefathers got for them. Or how it is unloving for God to make a promise to Abraham concerning his household/children?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Allow me to fast-forward this convo along a bit....

If you wish to use 'covenant', in any capacity, it would only be logically that this 'covenant' is between this claimed god and each and every individual alone. Each and every person would need to formulate a personal relationship, based upon this ageny's commands. Why? Well....

1) Imagine the alternative.... "Hey god, can you save my kids too? They may or may not ever acknowledge you as their Lord and savior, but since you love me, and I love my kids, can you do me this special favor?"

2) Or how about.... "I, God, made a pack with Abraham. He just so happened to be an Israelite. Since he just so happened to be an Israelite, I'm going to mention Israelites, in any capacity, in later commands."

So though you may dismiss my observation(s), as mere opinion, I ask you.... Is my conclusion rational? If not, why not?

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Please also note though that any foreigner who went with Israel and dwelled among them was to be treated as one native-born, even receiving an inheritance in the land. Some reality AND foreshadowing for what was to come after Christ.

I think you continue to miss my point, even though you 'noted' it... "God" would save, or attempt to save, all and not mention anything about Israelites in the first place.

To the bold: Why not?

Regardless, the NT is part of the ongoing account.

I agree. In the beginning, God placed favor to Israelites. And much later, He expanded.

If you're going to go back to the 'beginning', at the very least you have to start with Abraham and the FAITH that Abraham showed.

Please do not pretend it is more than an opinion. You have offered nothing to back it up, except your own thoughts and feelings on the matter.

Directly right back at ya....

Not 'right back at ya... ".

I have backed up what I have said. I have offered explanations, including explaining how something is from love. You have simply made the claim that "an all loving" (whatever you mean by that) God would not do that, would not promise that, would not mention the Israelites, etc.

There was no need to acknowledge it. It is not about slavery; it is about God protecting the people who belonged to Him (and who cried out to Him), as per the covenant He had with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

So in Leviticus 25:46, there exists other qualifiers besides merely being an Israelite? If so, what are these qualifiers?

"It is about God protecting the people who belonged to Him (and how cried out to Him), as per the covenant He had with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

I'm not sure where you get from my post that there are other qualifiers?

Oh, but wait... Should I just discard your entire response as a noted opinion alone? If so, why should I even engage with you at all?

You are free to do as you choose, but I have not simply said "God would do that." I have explained it, given examples (not just biblical examples, but examples from our current time, as well as examples in contracts/covenants/inheritances/treaties). You do not seem to have even attempted to reason how something may or may not be from love. Or explained why inheritance rights are unjust, unloving. Or how it must be unloving or unjust that First Nations children (born into it) receive certain rights that their forefathers got for them. Or how it is unloving for God to make a promise to Abraham concerning his household/children?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Allow me to fast-forward this convo along a bit....

Or maybe slow it down and take some time to mull?

If you wish to use 'covenant', in any capacity, it would only be logically that this 'covenant' is between this claimed god and each and every individual alone. Each and every person would need to formulate a personal relationship, based upon this ageny's commands. Why? Well....

1) Imagine the alternative.... "Hey god, can you save my kids too? They may or may not ever acknowledge you as their Lord and savior, but since you love me, and I love my kids, can you do me this special favor?"

Have you forgotten that Israel DID acknowledge God and enter into a covenant with Him - Israel and God? Regardless of any temporary hardening, God knows how this all turns out (just as He knew what would happen then).

And the people invited into the Kingdom (no matter their role there), and receiving eternal life, will obviously acknowledge God and His Son, and be grateful for the gift of life and healing they (and their children) have been given.

Love.

2) Or how about.... "I, God, made a pack with Abraham. He just so happened to be an Israelite. Since he just so happened to be an Israelite, I'm going to mention Israelites, in any capacity, in later commands."

Abraham was not an Israelite.

So though you may dismiss my observation(s), as mere opinion, I ask you.... Is my conclusion rational? If not, why not?

Your conclusions appear to be based upon misinformation.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[POI]

Have you forgotten that Israel DID acknowledge God and enter into a covenant with Him - Israel and God?

This would be like saying America has acknowledged Jesus as their savior. Even if the majority claim Christianity, each and every person would need specific evaluation by this deity; based upon this diety's wishes/commands.

(i.e.) "America and Jesus"

Regardless of any temporary hardening, God knows how this all turns out (just as He knew what would happen then).

Yes, another head-scratcher.....

And the people invited into the Kingdom (no matter their role there), and receiving eternal life, will obviously acknowledge God and His Son, and be grateful for the gift of life and healing they (and their children) have been given.

Again, there would be no reason to mention 'accidental properties' anywhere (i.e.) Israelites. If individuals believe/follow, they believe/follow.

Abraham was not an Israelite.

I think you are missing the bigger picture here... To mention 'accidental properties' at all, is something a human would do; and not what an omnibenevolent agency would do. And yet, as demonstrated, more than once, He apparently does.

[Clownboat]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Clownboat in post #113]

Just a warning POI. See Tam's signature line:
your servant and a slave of Christ,

slave
noun
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Tam has no choice as she is owned by and has been forced to obey Christ.

How can the words of a slave be trusted when their obedience is being forced? Just something to keep in mind.

Come now. Not only is this purely ad hominem, as someone who claims to have once BEEN a Christian, you must know that what you just said is false. Christ does not FORCE anyone to serve and obey Him. We choose to do so out of love; just as He made Himself a least one (taking the form of a slave), to SERVE, even though He is the King and Heir of God. He gives His will over to His Father's will. Not because He is forced to do so. But because of His love for Father.

It is about serving and love. As one who claims to have once been a Christian, surely you knew this.



Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

slave
noun
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

Why do you claim to be a slave and then lament when it is pointed out? How can you claim to be a slave while ignoring that a slave is forced into obedience? I have supplied the definition for slave. If you are not one, it would be wise to stop claiming to be one as it is an insult to actual humans suffering due to slavery.

You also need correction on an ad hominem.
ad ho·mi·nem
adjective
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Your position is one that you are a slave. It's in every one of your posts. My words are directed at this position of yours.
Perhaps English isn't your first language?