He Gets Us campaign

[RDKirk]

"not as a homosexual, but as a human being"
"not (just) as a homosexual, but also as a human being"

Seems to be saying the same thing to me - just with a little more emphasis. Just sayin...

No, they don't mean the same. Is English your second language?

Are you also arguing in favor of chattel slavery?

 

[HarleyER]

Why would I say that? I wouldn't at all say that was unkind of Paul. Church discipline does, at times, need to be applied and the Corinthians failed to do so.

Of course, we all know the Corinthians, like many of us Americans, were living in a morally disruptive culture. It was also not a very loving culture, either.

And I, too, will stand by my reasoning. I'll also stand by my education and that of hundreds of other Christians who have helped me to be better educated about the Bible over the years. I owe them my undying gratitude where it is appropriate and due.

I'm just answering like the wacky fundamentalist nutcase that I am.

 

[FameBright]

No, they don't mean the same. Is English your second language?

Are you also arguing in favor of chattel slavery?

No, it is not my second language.

 

[RDKirk]

"not as a homosexual, but as a human being"
"not (just) as a homosexual, but also as a human being"

Seems to be saying the same thing to me - just with a little more emphasis. Just sayin...

"Not as a slave, but as a brother."

Not A, but B. A and B are mutually exclusive.

Not just as A but also as B. That says the opposite. It says that slave and brother are the same.

@Clare73 has literally added words to the scripture to make it mean the opposite of what it says.

A slave is not a brother in any mind that has a true concept of what "slave" and "brother" mean. Certainly not in a mind that has been transformed to conform to the mind of Christ.

 

[HarleyER]

Hey there

... Would you buy and sell slaves or do you condone that others do so?

Hi RB

I thought your question to be rather interesting. Slavery in the OT was suppose to be different than what it was or is. The OT gave opportunities for slaves to become permanent property of their masters. But man is sinful and the cruelity that exist under slavery was never meant to be, even under OT law.

If you could lift someone out of poverty, provide for them, watch after them and take care of them, all on the condition that they would be your "slave", helping you in your various tasks, wouldn't that be best for them and you instead of leaving them in poverty? I say all of this, because that is precisely what God has done for us. We are now "slaves to Christ". He is our provider.

Many translations today have changed the Greek word "doulos" from slave to servant to make it less offensive. However, I'm happy to be called a slave to God.

 

[Clare73]

Or, was Paul handling Scripture loosely? Did you bother to read the text closely and see what he was quoting and.............. find out how it was used and what it referred to in the Old Testament?

No. No, you didn't.

Evidently, more than you regarding the context, keeping in mind that assertions must be Biblically demonstrated to have merit.

 

[Clare73]

It has ceased to exist as an institution for any necessary reason and is now criminal. Society had slavery when St. Paul wrote Romans 13:1-14 and has officially abolished it and it has no validity in light of Romans 13:1-14 in present society.

Keeping in mind that "validity in present society" has no bearing on Biblical morality, a good example thereof being abortion.

Scripture, which is my authority for faith and morals, does not present slavery as immoral, but to the contrary in Lev 25:44-46, Eph 6:5,
1 Ti 6:1, Tit 2:9, 1 Pe 2:18, not to mention it is everywhere presented as a type of our relationship to Christ (Ro 1:1, 6:16, 19, 1 Co 7:21-23, 2 Co 4:5, Php 1:1, 1 Pe 2:16, 2 Pe 1:1, Jude 1).

Let's not be holier than God.

Likewise, keeping in mind that while slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

 

[FameBright]

"Not as a slave, but as a brother."

Not A, but B. A and B are mutually exclusive.

Not just as A but also as B. That says the opposite. It says that slave and brother are the same.

@Clare73 has literally added words to the scripture to make it mean the opposite of what it says.

A slave is not a brother in any mind that has a true concept of what "slave" and "brother" mean. Certainly not in a mind that has been transformed to conform to the mind of Christ.

I don't think Clare was trying to change the meaning as much as trying to put it into context. She seemed to be making a point that it was not about slavery, but it's all semantics. Paul was referring to slavery more of as a social status.

Not A, but B. This could represent a shift in perspective. A could still be A and B could still be B. I guess it depends on the context.

"Not as a slave, but as a brother". This suggests that the relationship between two individuals should not be based solely on the master-slave dynamic (A), but rather on a deeper bond of brotherhood (B). The intention is to elevate the status of the person from mere servitude to a more and compassionate connection.

In the context of spiritual transformation and Christian teachings, the intention is to recognize the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their roles or social status.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You added words to the scripture. The "just" and "also" totally change the meaning...and ARE NOT THERE.

Grammatically speaking it is permissible, and contextually it shows that that is his meaning. The translations are translations of Scripture.

Scripture is the word of God. The book in your hands is a translation of it. Would you say that the translators are adding to the words of Scripture, or just translating it to the best of their knowledge, study and ability? @Clare73 is interpreting it to the best of her knowledge, study and ability, and, I think, prayer and thought.

Be careful of your accusations. They will be used to measure you, just as what I am saying now will be used to measure me.

 

[RDKirk]

Grammatically speaking it is permissible, and contextually it shows that that is his meaning. The translations are translations of Scripture.

Scripture is the word of God. The book in your hands is a translation of it. Would you say that the translators are adding to the words of Scripture, or just translating it to the best of their knowledge, study and ability? @Clare73 is interpreting it to the best of her knowledge, study and ability, and, I think, prayer and thought.

Be careful of your accusations. They will be used to measure you, just as what I am saying now will be used to measure me.

No, @Clare73 has made her support of slavery absolutely clear:

Likewise, keeping in mind that while slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

 

[RDKirk]

Grammatically speaking it is permissible, and contextually it shows that that is his meaning. The translations are translations of Scripture.

Scripture is the word of God. The book in your hands is a translation of it. Would you say that the translators are adding to the words of Scripture, or just translating it to the best of their knowledge, study and ability? @Clare73 is interpreting it to the best of her knowledge, study and ability, and, I think, prayer and thought.

Be careful of your accusations. They will be used to measure you, just as what I am saying now will be used to measure me.

No, @Clare73 has made her support of slavery absolutely clear:

Likewise, keeping in mind that while slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Lukaris said:
It has ceased to exist as an institution for any necessary reason and is now criminal. Society had slavery when St. Paul wrote Romans 13:1-14 and has officially abolished it and it has no validity in light of Romans 13:1-14 in present society.

Keeping in mind that "validity in present society" has no bearing on Biblical morality, a good example thereof being abortion.

Scripture, which is my authority for faith and morals, does not present slavery as immoral, but to the contrary in Lev 25:44-46, Eph 6:5,
1 Ti 6:1, Tit 2:9, 1 Pe 2:18, not to mention it is everywhere presented as a type of our relationship to Christ (Ro 1:1, 6:16, 19, 1 Co 7:21-23, 2 Co 4:5, Php 1:1, 1 Pe 2:16, 2 Pe 1:1, Jude 1).

Let's not be holier than God.

Likewise, keeping in mind that while slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

Slavery AS directed by God is not immoral. The abuse of any of God's directives IS immoral. Blanket condemnation (or justification) is not to be advised.

Also, @Lukaris bear in mind that there is no such thing as a global 'society'. Slavery is still permissible and public in some places.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Evidently, more than you regarding the context, keeping in mind that assertions must be Biblically demonstrated to have merit.

You're saying it doesn't make it so. ... In the meantime, I'll just go with what I see in the Bible when I read it in it's fuller, interconnecting contexts, along with scholarly insights from various Biblical scholars.

Let me know when it finally dawns on you that Paul changed the application of selected O.T. verses when applying it to the incestuous member of the Corinthian church whom they failed to discipline ...

 

[Clare73]

No, @Clare73 has made her support of slavery absolutely clear:

Incomplete/selective recall. . .

Clare73 has made her support of the Biblical morality of slavery very clear.

Clare73 has likewise made very clear that slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), yet it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

 

[Clare73]

You're saying it doesn't make it so. ... In the meantime, I'll just go with what I see in the Bible when I read it in it's fuller, interconnecting contexts, along with scholarly insights from various Biblical scholars.

Let me know when it finally dawns on you that Paul changed the application of selected O.T. verses when applying it to the incestuous member of the Corinthian church whom they failed to discipline ...

A misreading of Paul.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A misreading of Paul.

You need to stop tossing out "just so" statements, Clare. It's not a fashionable look on you. I know you're smarter and more capable than that.

Go read a dozen commentaries on 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, a dozen of your own choosing even. And then come back and show me I'm dead wrong.

 

[Clare73]

You need to stop tossing out "just so" statements, Clare. It's not a fashionable look on you. I know you're smarter and more capable than that.

Go read a dozen commentaries on 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, a dozen of your own choosing even. And then come back and show me I'm dead wrong.

Keeping in mind that Biblical assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without merit.

 

[RDKirk]

Lukaris said:
It has ceased to exist as an institution for any necessary reason and is now criminal. Society had slavery when St. Paul wrote Romans 13:1-14 and has officially abolished it and it has no validity in light of Romans 13:1-14 in present society.

Slavery AS directed by God is not immoral. The abuse of any of God's directives IS immoral. Blanket condemnation (or justification) is not to be advised.

Also, @Lukaris bear in mind that there is no such thing as a global 'society'. Slavery is still permissible and public in some places.

Even in Israel, God commanded that any period of slavery would end within seven years, unless it was voluntary. Where in the world outside Israel (and even within Israel in its later years) has that been true so that one can say today that slavery is ordained by God and not immoral?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Keeping in mind that Biblical assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without merit.

Right. And your assertions so far have no merit. Mine easily do. Very easily.

 

[RDKirk]

Incomplete/selective recall. . .

Clare73 has made her support of the Biblical morality of slavery very clear.

Clare73 has likewise made very clear that slavery--like poverty, sickness and disability--is undesirable and is to be avoided if possible (1 Co 7:21), yet it is not immoral and is ordained by God (Ex 21:20-21), as are poverty (1 Sa 2:7, Mk 14:7), sickness (Dt 32:39) and disability (Ex 4:11, Jn 9:2-3).

Even in Israel, God commanded that any period of slavery would end within seven years, unless it was voluntary. Where in the world outside Israel (and even within Israel in its later years) has that been true so that one can say today that slavery is ordained by God and not immoral?

An honest position would be an assertion that slavery practiced strictly by Mosaic law was moral, but that such slavery is not practiced. At this point, such slavery is merely hypothetical.

However, a New Testament reading would be that even the Mosaic Law is an inferior covenant to the Messianic Covenant, which is why there was reason for the Messianic Covenant that made the Mosaic Law obsolete.

"Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning."

That applies to slavery as much as it applies to divorce.