An Interesting Idea About The Origin Of Fundamentalist Christianity

since either he will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other.

 

This is silly and stupid apologetics. God never said don't take, buy, sell, or keep slaves so your suggestion that it is like where he says don't make a king for yourselves and here is what you do if you make a king for yourselves doesn't fly. There were different standards for different people like only non-isrealite slaves could be inheritable property. The statutes were written not as a matter of god's will, but so disputes could be litigated under the law. Slavery was lawful and officially endorsed.

 

Well if you want to do this kind of stuff do it right.

No one can serve two masters.

And as to,

Cannot means not possible.

 

Here is an idea about the fundamentalists thought system. It all revolves around interpretation of bible writings, but even more with the belief that the bible has magical qualities like being the unerring word of god etc. The only thing magical is that words being what they are and their relationship to our psyche have the capacity to inspire and conspire in many ways depending on how you take them. This proportion of having to interpret words in order to be understood is a fact that fundamentalists ignore in saying the material can be interpreted in only one way.

This obviously conflicts with the facts on the ground and this is why the fundamentalist take is so damaging to the idea of taking religion seriously for the rest of the world. The error is plain to see.

 

Yep, that's kind of the way it works.

 

Don't hold back, tell me how you really feel about it.

Okay how about this one; "He said to them: “Moses, out of regard for YOUR hardheartedness, made the concession to YOU of divorcing YOUR wives, but such has not been the case from [the] beginning. I say to YOU that whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication, and marries another commits adultery. (Matthew 19:8-9) Here it is interesting to note that there were cases where the Bible did not approve or endorse a certain course of action for the people but made concessions because of their hardheartedness.

Well what is it? Was it not a matter of God's will or did God "officially endorse" it

 

Well if you actually want to do this kind of stuff do it right.
No man can serve two masters (Matthew 6:24) KJV
or perhaps
No servant can serve two masters (Luke 16:13) KJV

 

I don't withhold anything.

For one you are talking about the law of moses right? Doesn't say anything about god allowing anything only that from the beginning it was not so. Further an article of divorce remains in except on the ground of fornication, (unchastity). These things are certainly written in the bible, what do you mean there are cases where the bible did not approve, do you mean to suggest god did not approve, because god and the bible are not the same thing.

Slavery was a common and accepted aspect of civilization until quite recently and levitican statutes specifically endorse the slave trade. Point is this has nothing to do with gods will as these were the laws of the people. Not endorsed by god or even looked upon unkindly by god, not god's concern. You have free will.

The stupid part comes in when you try to give nuance to god's character, as in I don't like this but i'm going to let it slide, to explain the stupid shit people do in the name of god and you do this to protect this image you have that the bible is some kind of magically formed talisman. It isn't. It is the records of persons and in some instances the record of persons who had a relationship with god.

If you are quoting scripture that is not the right I am talking about.
I am talking about applying meaning to the proportions of life.
No one, man woman or child can serve two masters.

 

Really???
I thought the Bible was formed in a vacuum of time and space unaffected by the going's on of man.
you mean it wasn't and it reflects the cultural and societal practices of the different times and places and needs to be considered with that awareness????

well whadda ya know....

 

It would be nice to consider the source as well. Our modern official versions are a political contrivance. The experience and knowledge of spirit is not thus confined in fact which is a whole other awareness.