Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How does Christianity handle those who find pleasure in receiving physical pain or emotional abuse, in light of this commandment?

Ah, I remember we had this conversation once a few months ago, and it's a different topic than this thread, but very briefly, we are only held accountable for what we understand (Romans 5:13, 4:15), and then according to our conscience (feeling of something being ok, or feeling like maybe it's wrong in and of itself), as explained in Romans ch 2, v6-16 (don't rely on the difficult and unclear ASV translation of this site for complex passages). Now, of course a person could not only lack any specific knowledge one way or the other about whatever topic of right and wrong, but additionally may not even have contact with feelings of right and wrong in some things, that is lack a conscience on it to help guide them. Then they are acting innocently by those same verses, in that case. (In contrast if they feel it is wrong intuitively, then that's a real guide, the conscience.) It would be highly speculative for me to try to even guess at how some pair of people might feel as a pair in such a situation, and I don't try to judge even just actions I don't understand (John 7:24, Matthew 7:1-5). Put another way, it would be wrong for me because it would break the golden rule for me. That's one of the perfections of the (full) golden rule (in the perfect form Christ gave) -- it fits precisely and perfectly to conscience. Put simply, if we realize that in the other person's shoes we'd not want that treatment, then it's wrong for us to do.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
Ah, I remember we had this conversation once a few months ago, and it's a different topic than this thread, but very briefly, we are only held accountable for what we understand (Romans 5:13, 4:15), and then according to our conscience (feeling of something being ok, or feeling like maybe it's wrong in and of itself), as explained in Romans ch 2, v6-16 (don't rely on the difficult and unclear ASV translation of this site for complex passages). Now, of course a person could not only lack any specific knowledge one way or the other about whatever topic of right and wrong, but additionally may not even have contact with feelings of right and wrong in some things, that is lack a conscience on it to help guide them. Then they are acting innocently by those same verses, in that case. (In contrast if they feel it is wrong intuitively, then that's a real guide, the conscience.) It would be highly speculative for me to try to even guess at how some pair of people might feel as a pair in such a situation, and I don't try to judge even just actions I don't understand (John 7:24, Matthew 7:1-5). Put another way, it would be wrong for me because it would break the golden rule for me. That's one of the perfections of the (full) golden rule (in the perfect form Christ gave) -- it fits precisely and perfectly to conscience. Put simply, if we realize that in the other person's shoes we'd not want that treatment, then it's wrong for us to do.

"Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (RSV, Matthew 7:12) is decidedly different from "[if] we'd not want that treatment, then it's wrong for us to do.".

Matthew 7:12 has Jesus commanding things which must be done to others, whereas you are defining a separate but related idea: what should not be done. I agree with the latter, but not with the former.

You seem to be claiming a meaning that is not found in the verse.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (RSV, Matthew 7:12) is decidedly different from "[if] we'd not want that treatment, then it's wrong for us to do.".

Matthew 7:12 has Jesus commanding things which must be done to others, whereas you are defining a separate but related idea: what should not be done. I agree with the latter, but not with the former.

The form Christ gave has both the do-not-do side and the must-do side, as we think of instances. We are to:
1) not do to others what you would not have them do to you, and
2) do to others what you would have them do to you.

In that when you do an action to another person, it has to be what you'd want them to do to/for you (if you were in their situation/shoes).
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
The form Christ gave has both the do-not-do side and the must-do side, as we think of instances. We are to:
1) not do to others what you would not have them do to you, and
2) do to others what you would have them do to you.
Where can I find #1 in your scriptures?
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Where can I find #1 in your scriptures?

Before that, just consider:

When you do an action to another person, it has to be what you'd want them to do to/for you (if you were in their situation/shoes).

This automatically means we can't do actions we would not want others to do to us, because that's not the required action by the rule.

Yes?

But long lists of don't-do rules are available, just like the long lists of to-do rules. This full verse in it's entirety can help here:

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

It sums up all the laws of how people should act and not act in relation to each other.
 
Upvote 0

ananda

Early Buddhist
May 6, 2011
14,757
2,123
Soujourner on Earth
✟186,371.00
Marital Status
Private
Before that, just consider:

When you do an action to another person, it has to be what you'd want them to do to/for you (if you were in their situation/shoes).

This automatically means we can't do actions we would not want others to do to us, because that's not the required action by the rule.

Yes?

But long lists of don't-do rules are available, just like the long lists of to-do rules. This full verse in it's entirety can help here:

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

It sums up all the laws of how people should act and not act in relation to each other.
OK, so it's not clearly said, but I accept that as your interpretation.

However, that still begs the question "How does Christianity handle those who find pleasure in receiving physical pain or emotional abuse, in light of this commandment?"

If "do not do to others what you don't want done to you" was the only commandment, then there would be no problem.

However, your commandment clearly states "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them". This presents a problem in light of masochistic individuals.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OK, so it's not clearly said, but I accept that as your interpretation.

However, that still begs the question "How does Christianity handle those who find pleasure in receiving physical pain or emotional abuse, in light of this commandment?"

If "do not do to others what you don't want done to you" was the only commandment, then there would be no problem.

However, your commandment clearly states "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them". This presents a problem in light of masochistic individuals.

Christianity is a huge group of diverse people with diverse views on a lot of things, but in terms of what is in the scripture, I answered, as far as I currently have understanding, that question in post #121, and don't have other parts to offer on it.... ah, Here is one more thing that just occurred to me -- over and over Christ faced the Pharisees accusing Him on the basis of some of their own particular interpretations of the Law, and He answered by showing them how they wrongly made legalistic man-made extensions of the law that were not in keeping with the true spirit and true intent of the Law. I think that's helpful to consider. That's another way the verse Matt 7:12 is especially helpful, in how it is about the true intent of the Law. (even while it also expands the meaning of the law into all situations)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Par5

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,013
653
78
LONDONDERRY
✟69,175.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
To begin with, there were, to a certain extent, different guidelines for Hebrew “indentured servants” (aka slaves) as opposed to foreign slaves captured in war. We in the 21st century west have preconceived notions and images regarding slavery based on the practice in the19th century US and its horrors, but it is inaccurate to transfer these ideas to ancient Israel.

In a society where prison did not exist, a captive foreigner was faced with two options – execution or slavery, the latter being more humane. Why didn't God just simply outlaw slavery in this situation, aka be more “humane”? As I stated in a previous post, the various Canaanite peoples practiced wicked religious practices that were an abomination in His sight, such as child sacrifice and fertility cults involving male and female shrine prostitutes, among other things. That was a major purpose for the Israelite invasion. If the Mosaic Law had commanded to set the Canaanites free, that would have nullified God's intent for having the Hebrews engage in warfare in the first place.

A major point of contention in this thread seems to be Exodus 21:20-21 which is being viewed as grossly inhumane and on par with American slavery. However I encourage you to keep reading ahead to Exodus 21:26-27 in conjunction with Deuteronomy 17:8-10. Any man who did kill his slave was considered to be guilty of murder and would be subsequently punished accordingly. If the slave lived, it was indicative of the master's intention as discipline, but permanent personal injury brought freedom. The master's power over foreign captives was limited which was unprecedented in the ancient world and thus differentiated the Israelite nation from its neighbors.

If any of you want slavery discussed in light of the New Testament, I can address that as well.
It is not a case of comparing biblical slavery with American slavery. It's a case of saying that slavery in any guise is wrong irrespective of when it occurs. The fact that they beat their slaves because they considered them their property, is wrong. The fact that slaves could die from a beating shows that it was wrong. The fact that a slave could die days after a beating shows that it was wrong. What you are saying in your attempt to justify a vile practice is that if the slave dies immediately after a beating it is murder, but if he dies a couple of days later it is because of an act of discipline. That is rather twisted logic. For a slave to die from a beating indicates that the beating must have been severe, and the laws regarding a slave being freed as a result of losing a tooth or having an eye damaged are all very well, but there are many ways to beat someone without damaging an eye or tooth or bones.
At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter if the slave owner treated his slaves well because the slaver still considered the slaves to be his property and that is both repugnant and wrong. Any further indignity heaped on the slave such as beatings, having their children taken from them or having their ears tagged like a farm animal only adds to the wrong and the repugnance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brother Billy
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
There seem to be 2 main arguments:

1) "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

If there is going to be a list of do-not's, I would think it should/would include slavery.

2) Society couldn't handle it/Society was operating differently, then.

The very first commandment ("Thou shalt have no other gods before Me") kinda shows that this deity doesn't care much for what society can handle or its norms.
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is not a case of comparing biblical slavery with American slavery. It's a case of saying that slavery in any guise is wrong irrespective of when it occurs. The fact that they beat their slaves because they considered them their property, is wrong. The fact that slaves could die from a beating shows that it was wrong. The fact that a slave could die days after a beating shows that it was wrong. What you are saying in your attempt to justify a vile practice is that if the slave dies immediately after a beating it is murder, but if he dies a couple of days later it is because of an act of discipline. That is rather twisted logic. For a slave to die from a beating indicates that the beating must have been severe, and the laws regarding a slave being freed as a result of losing a tooth or having an eye damaged are all very well, but there are many ways to beat someone without damaging an eye or tooth or bones.
At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter if the slave owner treated his slaves well because the slaver still considered the slaves to be his property and that is both repugnant and wrong. Any further indignity heaped on the slave such as beatings, having their children taken from them or having their ears tagged like a farm animal only adds to the wrong and the repugnance.

Why wasn't slavery banned outright?

Gaining freedom in certain circumstances (you listed only 2, but there were more) -- still not enough for us, today.

We want no injustices at all, ever. Not anywhere, in all of time.

But these laws in Israel were a continuing progression.

Incremental.

The laws were incremental, progressing, over time.

Like steps on a stair.

Why?

That's the question you should be wondering (unless you already have learned why from reading what I wrote on it not many posts above).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There seem to be 2 main arguments:

1) "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

If there is going to be a list of do-not's, I would think it should/would include slavery.

2) Society couldn't handle it/Society was operating differently, then.

The very first commandment ("Thou shalt have no other gods before Me") kinda shows that this deity doesn't care much for what society can handle or its norms.

See post just above.

About your last point, there is a minimum level of knowledge we are all using here, to at least be aware of the content of some number of the laws being discussed, know something of the laws and listed consequences, and interventions plainly in the texts, Exodus, Deuteronomy. Some awareness of what you are putatively talking about.

Ergo, if God didn't care, then why make the variety of laws, and with inducements and punishments and other aids to push the society upwards over time? A real divine indifference would not intervene so much (or at all), nor send so many kinds of aids and warnings and logical consequences, etc., like a parent that cares. This is straightforward and obvious. You'll have to do more reading of the text in order to discuss it in any meaningful way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Par5

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,013
653
78
LONDONDERRY
✟69,175.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why wasn't slavery banned outright?

Gaining freedom in certain circumstances (you listed only 2, but there were more) -- still not enough for us, today.

We want no injustices at all, ever. Not anywhere, in all of time.

But these laws in Israel were a continuing progression.

Incremental.

The laws were incremental, progressing, over time.

Like steps on a stair.

Why?

That's the question you should be wondering (unless you already have learned why from reading what I wrote on it not many posts above).
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
See post just above.

About your last point, there is a minimum level of knowledge we are all using here, to at least be aware of the content of some number of the laws being discussed, know something of the laws and listed consequences, and interventions plainly in the texts, Exodus, Deuteronomy. Some awareness of what you are putatively talking about.

Ergo, if God didn't care, then why make the variety of laws, and with inducements and punishments and other aids to push the society upwards over time? A real divine indifference would not intervene so much (or at all), nor send so many kinds of aids and warnings and logical consequences, etc., like a parent that cares. This is straightforward and obvious. You'll have to do more reading of the text in order to discuss it in any meaningful way.
Incremental, like steps on a stair...

The very first commandment wasn't incremental or step-like; no other gods before me.

Also, it was followed by burning the calf, grinding it to powder, forcing the Israelite's to drink it, and being told to "go back and forth through the camp from gate to gate, and slay his brother, his friend, and his neighbor".

Which was about 3,000 people.

It sounds very much like this deity doesn't care much for being incremental about things this deity cares about.

You can't have it both ways.
 
Upvote 0

Par5

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,013
653
78
LONDONDERRY
✟69,175.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
When biblical slavery is criticized, many Christians say ah, but that was the way things were in those less enlightened days. It was acceptable to the people of that period, buying and selling slaves was part of their economic structure. On all those things I agree, but then I would go on to say that it was still wrong which is where Christians and I part company. Christians don't say that it was wrong but go on to describe it as though it was some kind of welfare programme for down and outs and the only reason I can think of as to why Christians don't criticize it is because they believe the laws on slave ownership came from their god and they don't wish to be at odds with their god in spite of what their conscience might be telling them.
I also believe that if that bible account of slavery had been about another nation that worshiped what Christians call a pagan god, then they would be all over them like a rash.
I recall reading an earlier post someone saying what the Hebrews could do with people from a defeated nation, kill them or make them slaves, that it was more humane to make them slaves they said.
My question to that is this. If they weren't going to make them slaves what would be the reason for killing them?
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Incremental, like steps on a stair...

The very first commandment wasn't incremental or step-like; no other gods before me.

Also, it was followed by burning the calf, grinding it to powder, forcing the Israelite's to drink it, and being told to "go back and forth through the camp from gate to gate, and slay his brother, his friend, and his neighbor".

Which was about 3,000 people.

It sounds very much like this deity doesn't care much for being incremental about things this deity cares about.

You can't have it both ways.

Looks like you've had some confusion there guy.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,173
9,191
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,152,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When biblical slavery is criticized, many Christians say ah, but that was the way things were in those less enlightened days. It was acceptable to the people of that period, buying and selling slaves was part of their economic structure. On all those things I agree, but then I would go on to say that it was still wrong which is where Christians and I part company. Christians don't say that it was wrong but go on to describe it as though it was some kind of welfare programme for down and outs and the only reason I can think of as to why Christians don't criticize it is because they believe the laws on slave ownership came from their god and they don't wish to be at odds with their god in spite of what their conscience might be telling them.
I also believe that if that bible account of slavery had been about another nation that worshiped what Christians call a pagan god, then they would be all over them like a rash.
I recall reading an earlier post someone saying what the Hebrews could do with people from a defeated nation, kill them or make them slaves, that it was more humane to make them slaves they said.
My question to that is this. If they weren't going to make them slaves what would be the reason for killing them?

Why? For what reason had those various cities forfeited the right to continue?

Deuteronomy 12:31 -- because they burned children in fire. As their permanent ongoing culture.

Therefore those cultures were to be fully and entirely erased from existence, and many and sometimes all in them sent on to judgement day, where the innocent and the guilty will be sorted out.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Par5

Well-Known Member
Nov 5, 2017
1,013
653
78
LONDONDERRY
✟69,175.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why? For what reason had those various cities forfeited the right to continue?

Deuteronomy 12:31 -- because they burned children in fire. As their permanent ongoing culture.

Therefore those cultures were to be fully and entirely erased from existence, and many and sometimes all in them sent on to judgement day, where the innocent and the guilty will be sorted out.
Why? For what reason had those various cities forfeited the right to continue?

Deuteronomy 12:31 -- because they burned children in fire. As their permanent ongoing culture.

Therefore those cultures were to be fully and entirely erased from existence, and many and sometimes all in them sent on to judgement day, where the innocent and the guilty will be sorted out.
So they punished these people for the evil practice of sacrificing their children by, let me get this right, by murdering their children.
And anyway, the biblical god didn't seem too upset about the time a certain Jephthah sacrificed his daughter to him.
I am sure you have heard of the Christian apologist William Lane Craig. His take on the slaughter of mothers and their infants tops anything I have ever heard when it comes to excusing biblical genocide. He thinks the men who carried out the slaughter of the mothers and their children were the ones who suffered. Just imagine how they must have been terribly affected he said, having to go from dwelling to dwelling killing all those mothers and their infants.

Oh, the poor dears. You couldn't make it up!
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Looks like you've had some confusion there guy.
Was I off on the numbers or actions taken?

It would help the discussion if you specify about what you think I'm confused on.
 
Upvote 0

Willie T

St. Petersburg Vineyard
Oct 12, 2012
5,319
1,820
St. Petersburg, FL
✟68,979.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The one sentence the OP used negates his entire argument:
Today we recognize that slavery is immoral
Nothing "man" RECOGNIZES, makes something God has implemented, "immoral." That is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, ours to decide. No matter how much we want to rant and rave and throw tantrums about it, many things are just not ours to declare "immoral".
We can say it violates laws WE have made. But, that is all it amounts to. (By the way, WE have made it OUR law that homosexuals can marry..... within a few decades, we will have expanded that law OF OURS to include adults marrying children.)
We don't know why God found no problem with slavery... but He seems to have found none.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟38,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
The one sentence the OP used negates his entire argument:

Nothing "man" RECOGNIZES, makes something God has implemented, "immoral." That is not, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, ours to decide. No matter how much we want to rant and rave and throw tantrums about it, many things are just not ours to declare "immoral".
We can say it violates laws WE have made. But, that is all it amounts to. (By the way, WE have made it OUR law that homosexuals can marry..... within a few decades, we will have expanded that law OF OURS to include adults marrying children.)
We don't know why God found no problem with slavery... but He seems to have found none.
I'm glad you agree that this deity had no problem with slavery.
 
Upvote 0