Morality

[GoldenKingGaze]

Ah, so you agree that these letters to the Corinthians had instructions for the Corinthians and shouldn't necessarily be taken as advice for any and every Christian everywhere. Thank you.

The care for little ones really matters, so it is a guide to wisdom.

 

[hedrick]

It is being debated whether he or others were a "slave" or a "bond servant". The difference is choice vs. being forced into slavery against their will.

The supposed difference. I don't think there's any evidence for it.

 

[rjs330]

Why do you think it is clear? I honestly don't understand why you think it is so straightforward. Straightforward and clear would be "thou shalt not have sex outside of marriage". The Bible does not say that, therefore it is not "clear". The second source you provided says that in order to think fornication meant something specific, it needs to be in context as a specific act. Where is porneia used in context to refer to specifically sex outside of marriage. Your source calls for it, just like I have been, but you haven't produced it. It is most certainly not clear, and is murky at best.


I already addressed that passage somewhere else in the thread. I won't make you look it up though, because I'm not going to bother looking for it either, so I'll just repeat myself since my reply never received an answer.

First, is everything that Paul wrote to the Corinthians supposed to be for everyone for all time? Look at 1 Corinthians 11. Should women never cut their hair short? Should men make sure to cut their hair short? Should men keep their heads uncovered when praying? Should women keep their heads covered when praying? Do these rules apply for all time, or do we look at the context of what was going on and who specifically he was talking to in order to determine whether these are rules for all time or not?

Second, in chapter 7 itself, he recommends that people stay in the state their in. If you're single, stay single, if you're married, stay married. The only reason to get married is if you're going to burn with passion. So should most Christians try to lead a celibate lifestyle forever and ever? Is he talking to every Christian that will ever come after he wrote that? Is he even talking to every Christian of the time period, or just the Corinthians?

Third, what were their options? If they wanted to have sex, it was either get married or go see a prostitute, or rape I guess, but we don't need to mix that in. People didn't date back then. Marriages were arranged between the girl's father and the husband. He wouldn't ever say, "go get a girlfriend" because they didn't have a word for "girlfriend". You went straight from being single to being engaged. So they were put in a position with only two moral choices, because the other choice of courtship didn't exist.

And lastly he wasn't talking to people who planned to get married and who might have sex before the big day. He was talking to people who were supposed to try and remain celibate for their whole lives and never plan on marrying. So he wasn't saying, "if you burn with passion, get married so that you don't slip up and have extra marital relations". He was saying, "if you can't handle being celibate your whole life, then the married life is for you". You're assuming the first interpretation because you aren't considering who his audience was and what advice he was giving about the choices they specifically faced.

And to put us back in the direction of the real question at hand, "does the Bible forbid fornication because that would make it also forbid rape?", I'll restate my other question to you that went unanswered.

Look at 1 Corinthians 7 again. It states that a woman shouldn't deny relations to her husband except for mutually agreed upon time periods reserved for prayer and fasting. If a husband wants sex, and his wife says no, she is sinning. If he has sex with her anyways, but doesn't beat her in the process, is he really at fault? He is doing what the Bible says is what a man is supposed to do in that he is not denying sex to his wife. However, she is not doing what the Bible says to do. Without a clear reference to rape itself, and considering the fact that no one back then knew that all rape was violent whether there was physical harm or not, why should a man think he is doing anything wrong if he forces his wife to do her wifely duties? Rape didn't become a law for a long, long time. And even when it did, it took a long time for people to realize that a wife can be raped by her husband (some people still disagree on that). So why the silence when it comes to rape? It is one of the most harmful sins anyone can commit, and we're supposed to piece together that we shouldn't do it ourselves?

That's why NV brought rape and slavery up in his OP. Because we had to learn over time that those things were wrong, when the Bible has no qualms about stating very matter of factly plenty of other things that we ought to do and ought not do.

Are you trying to say that people who were single back then if they wanted sex only went to prostitutes? Men and women when courting or bound to a relationship never had sex until they were married? Paul spoke and said rather than burn with passion. Marry someone. Yes he was referring to the single person and that is the point of this conversation. We already know adultery is sinful. Paul says it is best to be single so you can focus on serving God. But if your passions are to strong then get married so you don't sin. You actually think that it was only sinful to have sex if you pay for it? What you were,in fire and went looking and found a woman who was willing to give it up for free? ,That's ok? But the moment you lay down a silver piece it's not? Paul does not differentiate at all about what to. He gives one example and one only. Burn or marry. That's it. I don't buy there was no other option than a prostitute or rape. I think you need to find some sources to support that single people only had sex back then with prostitutes or rape.

And the Greek word did mean fornication and was understood so. You can say otherwise, but it is covered in the roots and offshoots of the word and has been understood so for as far back as you care to look.

I must tell you the thoughts you,bring up with the rape your wife thing just shows how far away you are from really understanding the bible. If you did you wouldn't have even suggested such nonsense.

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
1 Peter 3:7 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1pe.3.7.ESV

Forcing your wife to have sex with you even being sneaky about it does in no way show honor to her. Its wrong.

 

[Moral Orel]

Are you trying to say that people who were single back then if they wanted sex only went to prostitutes? Men and women when courting or bound to a relationship never had sex until they were married? Paul spoke and said rather than burn with passion. Marry someone. Yes he was referring to the single person and that is the point of this conversation. We already know adultery is sinful. Paul says it is best to be single so you can focus on serving God. But if your passions are to strong then get married so you don't sin. You actually think that it was only sinful to have sex if you pay for it? What you were,in fire and went looking and found a woman who was willing to give it up for free? ,That's ok? But the moment you lay down a silver piece it's not? Paul does not differentiate at all about what to. He gives one example and one only. Burn or marry. That's it. I don't buy there was no other option than a prostitute or rape. I think you need to find some sources to support that single people only had sex back then with prostitutes or rape.

You're right. People had other options than marry or pay. You didn't address most of what I said about Paul's letter though.

Burning with passion is the problem that Paul points out, and that is not extra marital sex. He states that you might burn with passion if you try to maintain a completely celibate lifestyle, so don't try to maintain a completely celibate lifestyle. If you're looking for a spouse, dating around, but not burning with passion, then Paul isn't talking to you. There is no basis to think that he is.

And the Greek word did mean fornication and was understood so. You can say otherwise, but it is covered in the roots and offshoots of the word and has been understood so for as far back as you care to look.

Your source said that we understand what it means in context. There is no context in the Bible that talks about extra marital sex. Or at least, I've asked, and you haven't produced yet. It is a word with a lot of meanings and a lot of uses. In the same way some people are on here arguing that the word used for "slave" is the same for "bondservant" and you know by context which they mean, it is the same for porneia. I've seen it used when talking about adultery. I've seen it used when talking about harlotry. I've seen it used when talking about incest. I've even seen it used when talking about idolatry which isn't even sexual. I've also seen it used for sexual impurity in general, but nowhere do I see extra marital sex between single people condemned as being sexually impure. You need to demonstrate that instead of simply saying "everybody knew what it meant".

I must tell you the thoughts you,bring up with the rape your wife thing just shows how far away you are from really understanding the bible. If you did you wouldn't have even suggested such nonsense.

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.
1 Peter 3:7 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1pe.3.7.ESV

Forcing your wife to have sex with you even being sneaky about it does in no way show honor to her. Its wrong.

Look at it this way, your wife is supposed to obey and do her duties as a wife. In a society where women didn't work outside of the home, we can use "doing the dishes" as an example of a wifely duty. If your wife refuses to do the dishes, and you can force her to without beating her, have you dishonored her? And yes, I am comparing doing the dishes to rape because a long time ago, people didn't see a difference between dishes and sex in terms of whether they were duties of a wife, and they didn't see any more harm occurring than the wife not enjoying herself.

You have to think about rape while imagining you know nothing about its harmful effects because that is how it was thought of before recent times, and then what I said makes a lot more sense. It took over a thousand years for someone to actually outlaw rape even though many, many nations were theocratically governed because people didn't see the harm that we know about today. Even when they outlawed rape, it didn't apply to wives for a long long time.

That's the point of bringing up rape and slavery in this thread. People didn't understand psychological harm, and it wasn't until we learned about it ourselves that people realized how bad these things were and started doing something about them. If the morality of the Bible was guided by God, then it would have transcended human knowledge of harmful things and stated that they were immoral without us understanding why at all. But the Bible left it up to us to figure these things out on our own. Look at the what the OT Law says about rape. Whenever it is mentioned in the Law, it is always associated with financial loss for a man. It never referenced the actual harm to the woman and it never protected any women other than virgins.

 

[ewq1938]

No. That is not how claims work. If you make a claim, you have to back it up with evidence. I don't have to disprove your claim. You don't get to just imagine things up and then use them as part of your argument.

Yet you also are "claiming" Jews could own slaves in the same exact manner they had before Roman occupation. Clearly occupation would affect everything not let things remain exactly as they had always been.

I know. You said that context tells us when it means "slave" and when it means "bondservant". Where does the context tell us that it means "slave" or does it never mean "slave".

I can't find any context in the NT that is concerning "slave". In every example it's a bond servant which is voluntary and yes most servants agreed to do it for money or to be taken care of so there would be a debt of sorts especially if they wanted to leave service before their time was completed.

I didn't say God ignored slavery, I didn't say Christians ignored slavery, I didn't say you ignored slavery, I said that the book that doesn't mention slavery ignores slavery by the definition of "ignore".

I have already proven Christians did not ignore slavery.

Of course I was wrong to say "the Bible" since the OT talks about how to buy, sell, capture, and treat your slaves in detail, so it isn't the whole Bible, just the NT.

Judaism allowed slavery, Christianity does not.

Showing Christians doing good things is no more evidence that Christianity supports those good things than me showing you Christians doing bad things is evidence that Christianity supports doing bad things. I don't need to even bother looking up terrible things Christians and churches have done in the past do I? We don't need to muck up this thread with any more negativity than we've already got, right?

It would be off topic and irrelevant. You think Christianity supported slavery yet there is no evidence of that claim. All evidence points to bond servants not slaves.

Even if your imaginary law was real, think about this: Roman captivity didn't change what Jews believed did it? It was still part of Jewish doctrine that you could buy and sell and beat slaves.

Doesn't mean the Roman's allowed that. That's also why they had to deliver Christ to the ROM's. There not allowed to kill him themselves.

So even if there were no Jewish slave owners at the time their belief about slavery needed to change, and the NT put forth no effort to do such a thing.

That remains an argument from silence. There are lots of things the NT is silent on. That doesn't mean those things were ignored by Christians.

As soon as Romans said it was okay, and I can show evidence for laws about Jews owning slaves in ancient Rome in the 300s if you want, they owned slaves.

I've already read the same things. There is no evidence of literal slavery even though that's the word translation choice. Unless you can how it comes from a Greek word that only means a literal slave and not a servant then we will be at the same impasse'.

It was still part of their belief system, and no one said to change that. On top of that, if you are also right that the NT only talked about bondservants and didn't mention slaves, then it never said to not beat your slaves, did it?

There is nothing post cross that supports beating of anyone. Your only examples will be spoken when the first covenant was still in effect and only spoken as parables not literal events.

Christianity converted all types of people. And since the writings from the church founders never told them to change their beliefs about slavery, because it only talked about bondservants, then they were free to keep them, whatever they may have been.

I'm no expert of the ECF's writings so I'm not going to just accept your "claim" that none spoke against slavery or the Jews practices of it.

 

[rjs330]

You're right. People had other options than marry or pay. You didn't address most of what I said about Paul's letter though.

Burning with passion is the problem that Paul points out, and that is not extra marital sex. He states that you might burn with passion if you try to maintain a completely celibate lifestyle, so don't try to maintain a completely celibate lifestyle. If you're looking for a spouse, dating around, but not burning with passion, then Paul isn't talking to you. There is no basis to think that he is.

Your source said that we understand what it means in context. There is no context in the Bible that talks about extra marital sex. Or at least, I've asked, and you haven't produced yet. It is a word with a lot of meanings and a lot of uses. In the same way some people are on here arguing that the word used for "slave" is the same for "bondservant" and you know by context which they mean, it is the same for porneia. I've seen it used when talking about adultery. I've seen it used when talking about harlotry. I've seen it used when talking about incest. I've even seen it used when talking about idolatry which isn't even sexual. I've also seen it used for sexual impurity in general, but nowhere do I see extra marital sex between single people condemned as being sexually impure. You need to demonstrate that instead of simply saying "everybody knew what it meant".

Look at it this way, your wife is supposed to obey and do her duties as a wife. In a society where women didn't work outside of the home, we can use "doing the dishes" as an example of a wifely duty. If your wife refuses to do the dishes, and you can force her to without beating her, have you dishonored her? And yes, I am comparing doing the dishes to rape because a long time ago, people didn't see a difference between dishes and sex in terms of whether they were duties of a wife, and they didn't see any more harm occurring than the wife not enjoying herself.

You have to think about rape while imagining you know nothing about its harmful effects because that is how it was thought of before recent times, and then what I said makes a lot more sense. It took over a thousand years for someone to actually outlaw rape even though many, many nations were theocratically governed because people didn't see the harm that we know about today. Even when they outlawed rape, it didn't apply to wives for a long long time.

That's the point of bringing up rape and slavery in this thread. People didn't understand psychological harm, and it wasn't until we learned about it ourselves that people realized how bad these things were and started doing something about them. If the morality of the Bible was guided by God, then it would have transcended human knowledge of harmful things and stated that they were immoral without us understanding why at all. But the Bible left it up to us to figure these things out on our own. Look at the what the OT Law says about rape. Whenever it is mentioned in the Law, it is always associated with financial loss for a man. It never referenced the actual harm to the woman and it never protected any women other than virgins.

Burning with passion was the problem the solution was marriage. Why was the solution to the problem marriage. Why even suggest it? The solution was not to have sex with whomever. The solution was to have a spouse because within that relationship you can release that passion. It was the only solution offered by Paul.

Again your sex with your wife thing ignores scripture. Yes you are not to defraud each other with sex. But Paul does not offer the solution is to have sneaky sex or even force sex. Are you trying to make that claim? Or are you trying to say that the bible says its not rape if you force your wife to have sex? I don't understand your point. This would go contrary to what the bible teaches. The word,of,God was ahead of the times with how to treat your wife. Look at Ephesians. The husband was the head of the house and yet he was told to sacrifice himself for his wife. He was told to love her. The bible tells us to esteem each other higher than ourselves. Paul describes love in I Corinthians 13 if you need to see what love was to mean to the husband. Forcing your wife to have sex would not fulfill anything taught in scripture. You are WAY off base on this one.

As far as porniea is concerned my source quoted other things and had other sources. Here are some other sources for the idea that the Greek word meant fornication as well as other things.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/porneia.html

http://static.westside.webfactional.com/abundantLife/092002/3.html

This site refers to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

I could go on an on with links but that becomes tedious. You won't find any ancient word studies of that word that doesn't indicate fornication isn't part of the words understanding. You might find some more liberal modern indicator but they ignore what has been understood through the ages that the word means fornication as well as other sex acts.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yet you also are "claiming" Jews could own slaves in the same exact manner they had before Roman occupation. Clearly occupation would affect everything not let things remain exactly as they had always been.

No, my claim is that we shouldn't assume a change unless there is evidence for one. Slavery was okay for the Jews at the time, so they wouldn't be choosing to abstain from the practice. Slavery was okay for the Romans, so they would have no reason to outlaw it. The only thing that is safe to assume that changed in a client state is who they pay their taxes to. You have zero evidence that it was outlawed, so your claim should be ignored. And regardless, the gospel wasn't just for Jews, it was for everyone. So your idea that "the Bible was referring to bondservants because it was only talking to Jewish masters" is incorrect. Did Paul talk to gentiles? Yep. So your argument is invalid.

I can't find any context in the NT that is concerning "slave". In every example it's a bond servant which is voluntary and yes most servants agreed to do it for money or to be taken care of so there would be a debt of sorts especially if they wanted to leave service before their time was completed.

Right, so the NT ignored slavery because it never bothered to mention it.

I have already proven Christians did not ignore slavery.

First of all, I never said Christians ignored slavery. In fact, in what you quoted I quite explicitly said, "I didn't say Christians ignored slavery". But, no, you showed that some Christians helped to free some slaves. That does not prove that Christianity did anything. Christianity is defined in the Bible (NT). It is not defined by what people who call themselves Christians do... or does it? Because I could write a few pages about that.

Judaism allowed slavery, Christianity does not.

If I want to look up what Christianity allows, doesn't allow, and commands, where might I find that information?

It would be off topic and irrelevant. You think Christianity supported slavery yet there is no evidence of that claim. All evidence points to bond servants not slaves.

It would be off topic, yes, but it would be illustrative of how you show proof. If someone does something, and they call themselves a Christian, then that proves Christianity supports that thing, right? If that's wrong, then all of your examples mean nothing. But just to be a fair sport, look at The Synod of Ganga, and their canons about slavery. You remember how the OT actually gives amnesty to runaway slaves? Well these Christians took that away. Probably because of the writings in the NT that tell slaves to obey their masters (even if their masters are Christians).

Doesn't mean the Roman's allowed that. That's also why they had to deliver Christ to the ROM's. There not allowed to kill him themselves.

What? The Romans didn't allow the Jews to believe what they wanted to? Reread what you quoted.

That remains an argument from silence. There are lots of things the NT is silent on. That doesn't mean those things were ignored by Christians.

No, it doesn't mean it was ignored by all Christians, and I never said it was. But the actions of some people who call themselves Christians doesn't define Christianity. Are you going to pull a "no true Scotsman" on me and say if they did things that we call "bad" today, then they weren't true Christians?
The Bible is also silent on the matter of me playing catch with my kid. It's a safe statement to make that "the Bible is silent on morally neutral matters" correct? So what reason is there for the Bible being silent on matters that are not morally neutral? I know that it borders on an argument from silence, but since the Bible is "God's word" and it is supposed to be our source to go to for the purpose of telling us what is moral and immoral, it is important for it to say what is moral and immoral.
If a textbook is touted as the ultimate guide on geography, but it doesn't mention Greenland, should we regard that textbook as the ultimate guide on geography? To say we shouldn't is just an argument from silence after all.

There is nothing post cross that supports beating of anyone. Your only examples will be spoken when the first covenant was still in effect and only spoken as parables not literal events.

There's nothing that condemns it either. And although it is spoken of in a parable, and acknowledged as something that happens so that people can relate to it, it isn't condemned. Parables are real life things that happen that have a spiritual meaning. I get that there's a meaning for stating them, and that meaning isn't what I refer to when I bring it up. The real life thing that the parable is based on is real. The NT acknowledges the beating of slaves, and not only refuses to condemn it, but since Christians are the "good guys" in the allegory, it gives a nod and a wink to it being acceptable behavior because it is just.

I'm no expert of the ECF's writings so I'm not going to just accept your "claim" that none spoke against slavery or the Jews practices of it.

I was trying to find the awkward way to phrase the NT in terms of what they had to read and listen to sermons about. They didn't compile it into "the Bible" yet. I just meant "the NT" and the NT ignored the subject of slavery, according to you.

 

[Moral Orel]

I agree with everything stated, but you left an important detail unaddressed.

There is the possibility that Onesimus was a slave for life and then had his term reduced upon conversion (analogous to a gentile slave in the Old Testament era converting to Judaism to shorten his enslavement). Recall that Paul says that Onesimus was once useless but is now useful. Aside from being wordplay on his name, this could be a reference to the fact that Onesimus converted after being enslaved (as I understand the story, Onesimus was a runaway slave who heard the gospel from Paul; see the Wikipedia on Onesimus: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onesimus).

I read you link and the other one. I didn't see any evidence for the theories presented. The first link looked at early interpretations of the book in question, but that isn't any more insightful than our personal interpretation.

Now I see as a clue the fact that Paul offered to pay off a debt. I only know of bondservants being indebted to their masters. I don't know how a real slave can become under debt to his master.

But the only clue that would point to him being a runaway slave is that he was in jail away from his master's home. But if he was a servant and allowed to travel from the home he could get into trouble for any number of reasons. He was "worthless" after all.

 

[Moral Orel]

Burning with passion was the problem the solution was marriage. Why was the solution to the problem marriage. Why even suggest it? The solution was not to have sex with whomever. The solution was to have a spouse because within that relationship you can release that passion. It was the only solution offered by Paul.

But you would only burn with passion if you were trying to live a life of celibacy. Again, I find it highly ironic that you say that these verses directed at the Corinthians are directed to everyone for all time and mean something they don't explicitly say, and yet you'll say, "he was only talking to the rich man, not everyone for all time".
How many Christians even attempt to lead a life of celibacy? How many plan on having a spouse from the time they are kids because their parents teach them that is what people do? Why are you ignoring that people are better off spouseless? It could just as well mean, "if you're going to burn with passion if you live a life of celibacy, then set out to find yourself a wife". Since it never says, "wait till you're married to do it".

Again your sex with your wife thing ignores scripture. Yes you are not to defraud each other with sex. But Paul does not offer the solution is to have sneaky sex or even force sex. Are you trying to make that claim? Or are you trying to say that the bible says its not rape if you force your wife to have sex? I don't understand your point. This would go contrary to what the bible teaches. The word,of,God was ahead of the times with how to treat your wife. Look at Ephesians. The husband was the head of the house and yet he was told to sacrifice himself for his wife. He was told to love her. The bible tells us to esteem each other higher than ourselves. Paul describes love in I Corinthians 13 if you need to see what love was to mean to the husband. Forcing your wife to have sex would not fulfill anything taught in scripture. You are WAY off base on this one.

It doesn't just say, "don't deny him" it says the man has authority over her body. I'm not saying that Paul says "rape her" but he doesn't say not to, and it does sound an awful lot like the man has authority to make her body do what he wants, so why shouldn't the man? Remember to throw out all of your knowledge about how harmful rape is in your response. Just think about dishes.

As far as porniea is concerned my source quoted other things and had other sources. Here are some other sources for the idea that the Greek word meant fornication as well as other things.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/porneia.html

http://static.westside.webfactional.com/abundantLife/092002/3.html

This site refers to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

I could go on an on with links but that becomes tedious. You won't find any ancient word studies of that word that doesn't indicate fornication isn't part of the words understanding. You might find some more liberal modern indicator but they ignore what has been understood through the ages that the word means fornication as well as other sex acts.

Actually, there have been. Not many, but there is "Does porneia mean fornication" by Bruce Malina. jstor.org has it on file, but you have to register to read it (free). Theres a retort on there too by Joseph Jensen, but Jensen starts by trying to claim the OT had a problem with it, even though that clearly isn't true. I've showed that in this thread more than once. And if the Jews didn't have a problem with extra marital relations (many, maybe most, still don't) and the Romans and the Greeks and the yada yada didn't have a problem with it, who are these people you've mentioned that knew it meant extra marital sex whenever someone in the NT said "porneia"?

More importantly, though, we ought to look at what "fornication" meant when it was used to translate "porneia". The original use was for prostitution, and prostitution alone starting in 1300. Sexual immorality in general was added over time after it was used in the KJV. Check out this link that has a ton of excerpts from old usages of the word "fornication". The page looks sloppy, but the excerpts are real and all in one place (instead of me pasting 20 links here). Just because we mean "sex between unmarried people" today, doesn't mean that's what it meant all this time or when it went into the Bible. I found it while looking for word studies on "porneia" but it's still interesting.

All that being said, I'm going to drop the "no sex till marriage" argument and let you have the last word. As another bit of a concession, I don't see any justification for a man to control another woman's body who isn't his wife, even if extra-marital relations are okay. I still stand by the fact that it being a sin is murky at best. If the Bible says something explicit, then I recognize that. Nothing explicit is said about extra marital sex, and I don't think a vaguely written letter to the Corinthians is enough to infer instructions for everyone for all time. The last word on the subject is yours.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Too bad so many people, including Christians, think they understand God, since that it what is needed to always correctly interpret the Bible.

To suggest that there is some "divine" and "mysterious" reason as to why the bible not only doesn't speak out against slavery, but actually regulates the practice, that we puny humans "can't understand", is nothing more then a cop-out intended to mask the obvious moral bankrupcy that exists in the minds of people who defend obvious immoral practices while waving a bible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is the atheistic supreme transcendent standard to test your OP?

Reason.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We could only know this by appealing to some other norm. What other norm do you appeal to?

Reason.

What do you measure God's Law by in order to know that it is deficient?

My brain and common human experience.

I think we can all agree that slavery is an immoral practice.
If you need it explained why it is an immoral practice, then I'm sorry, but you have no business discussing ethics and morals. Because obviously in that cae, you have no idea what these words mean.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you say "modern ethics > biblical ethics". On what grounds?

Their continued success on producing better societies.
"Better" meaning more well-being for more people in the broadest sense.

Less suffering, more justice, more freedom, more literacy, higher life expectancy, less crime, less infant mortality, more prosperity, more hapiness, more security,.... etc.

Modern secular and humanistic values have served as the basis of our secular democratic societies.

We've tried the "biblical" models and similar. They only resulted in bloodshed, oppression, suffering and general misery.

 

[rjs330]

But you would only burn with passion if you were trying to live a life of celibacy. Again, I find it highly ironic that you say that these verses directed at the Corinthians are directed to everyone for all time and mean something they don't explicitly say, and yet you'll say, "he was only talking to the rich man, not everyone for all time".
How many Christians even attempt to lead a life of celibacy? How many plan on having a spouse from the time they are kids because their parents teach them that is what people do? Why are you ignoring that people are better off spouseless? It could just as well mean, "if you're going to burn with passion if you live a life of celibacy, then set out to find yourself a wife". Since it never says, "wait till you're married to do it".


It doesn't just say, "don't deny him" it says the man has authority over her body. I'm not saying that Paul says "rape her" but he doesn't say not to, and it does sound an awful lot like the man has authority to make her body do what he wants, so why shouldn't the man? Remember to throw out all of your knowledge about how harmful rape is in your response. Just think about dishes.


Actually, there have been. Not many, but there is "Does porneia mean fornication" by Bruce Malina. jstor.org has it on file, but you have to register to read it (free). Theres a retort on there too by Joseph Jensen, but Jensen starts by trying to claim the OT had a problem with it, even though that clearly isn't true. I've showed that in this thread more than once. And if the Jews didn't have a problem with extra marital relations (many, maybe most, still don't) and the Romans and the Greeks and the yada yada didn't have a problem with it, who are these people you've mentioned that knew it meant extra marital sex whenever someone in the NT said "porneia"?

More importantly, though, we ought to look at what "fornication" meant when it was used to translate "porneia". The original use was for prostitution, and prostitution alone starting in 1300. Sexual immorality in general was added over time after it was used in the KJV. Check out this link that has a ton of excerpts from old usages of the word "fornication". The page looks sloppy, but the excerpts are real and all in one place (instead of me pasting 20 links here). Just because we mean "sex between unmarried people" today, doesn't mean that's what it meant all this time or when it went into the Bible. I found it while looking for word studies on "porneia" but it's still interesting.

All that being said, I'm going to drop the "no sex till marriage" argument and let you have the last word. As another bit of a concession, I don't see any justification for a man to control another woman's body who isn't his wife, even if extra-marital relations are okay. I still stand by the fact that it being a sin is murky at best. If the Bible says something explicit, then I recognize that. Nothing explicit is said about extra marital sex, and I don't think a vaguely written letter to the Corinthians is enough to infer instructions for everyone for all time. The last word on the subject is yours.

I appreciate the last word. You keep mentioning celibacy in your post. I don't know how that fits this passage. Note that Paul speaks to the unmarried. Its not just those who choose sexual celibacy but to,all people who are unmarried. Paul is saying that it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Again referring to sexual passion. He is admonishing us as believers to stay away from sex unless you are married. If you burn with sexual passion the only release is marriage. Combine this passage with other passages that refer to sexual immorality and you get the picture. Take a look at Romans 13.

The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.
Romans 13:12‭-‬14 ESV
http://bible.com/59/rom.13.12-14.ESV

Note that the words here refer to wanton sexual pleasures. Pay particular attention to "put on the Lord Jesus Christ" Combine that with what Paul said and you cannot miss the point. Do we see it imagine Jesus doing any,of those acts. Premarital sex is sexual immorality sexual wantoness. One night stands for sexual pleasure is wantoness. It is what the world does. There are plenty of scriptures that speak to this. Stay away from random sex but put on Jesus Christ and make NO provision for the flesh. And if you can't then get married for the marriage bed is undefiled. Putting on Jesus certainly cannot mean it's fine to go,around having sex with whomever you want to as long as you don't pay for it especially in light of the previous verses.

http://www.watchmanmag.com/0405/040518.htm

How does this,apply to all believers? I cannot fathom your understanding on this. Do you honestly believe that God held different standards to his people? One group can lie cheat and steal, but another can't? One group has to,say sexually chaste, but another group doesn't have to? One group can't commit incest, but the other group can? You have got to be kidding. Peter says Paul's writings are scripture. If so then they apply to everyone. Paul told Timothy that All scripture is profitable for reproof and exhortation. These letters were circulated,through the churches and considered by all and have been accepted since then to apply to all believers. This motion that it would only apply to the Corithians is not supported,by scripture and not by church history.

Again if you are an unbeliever I don't understand why you care so,much about this. It doesn't apply to you. It only applies to believers.

I will,speak on the husband and wife thing when,I can.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The NT is rather silent on slavery in that there is no specific prohibition against having slaves or servants. However As another poster stated in Revelation that one of the condemned things is slavery. I think there is another case to be made from the book of Philemon.

Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required,
Philemon 1:8 ESV
http://bible.com/59/phm.1.8.ESV

Paul could have,commanded Philemon to let Onesimus go, but he didn't. He wanted to appeal to Philemon on the basis of love not just on command. I think here this is consistent with Paul's teaching in the churches in how to treat people with love.

Bondservents were not to be treated as Bondservents but as brothers in Christ. Which was a radical change.

More to come.

According to you, Paul could have invoked his authority to free a slave, yet chose to put the idea out there as a suggestion in a loving tone. Meanwhile he harshly rebukes church members for consensual sex acts which he deems immoral. Do you find consensual homosexuality to be more in need of correction than slavery?

Paul's ethics were inferior to ours, so I don't think he got them from a wise and benevolent God. Therefore his writings are not divinely inspired. Since they were included in the canon, it follows that said God did not oversee the canonization process and thus he does not endorse the Bible. It follows that if an almighty God exists, he/she/it is not Jehovah.

So while the bible does not condemn servitude/slavery it does demand that all are treated kindly, fairly and equally and that they not be looked at as unequal, but equal to their masters.

Then why does Peter tell slaves to obey even their cruel/harsh masters?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

But if voluntary then he is a bond servant under a contract. The whole premise of some of the positions here is to claim Christianity supported literal slavery but thusfar no evidence proves this and Christian history proves that Christians were opposed to literal slavery.

So the Bible was not used to justify the chattel slavery of Africans in early American history?

All unsubstantiated assumptions. There is zero evidence of such a "transference" of Jewish rule on slavery into Christianity.





All of it is pure speculation.




There is no suggestion of that at all. Nothing Paul speaks about suggests anything more than servitude/servants.

So you are saying that when Paul uses the analogy of how we are slaves to Christ, the correct translation is bondservant and he means that we are only to temporarily serve Christ? We stop serving Christ after death? On the new earth we get to party it up and we don't have to serve Jesus?

If Paul's analogy means that we are to serve Christ forever, then he means we are slaves and he is using that analogy because that's the world he's aware of. A world of slavery which he does not rebuke.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I read you link and the other one. I didn't see any evidence for the theories presented. The first link looked at early interpretations of the book in question, but that isn't any more insightful than our personal interpretation.

Now I see as a clue the fact that Paul offered to pay off a debt. I only know of bondservants being indebted to their masters. I don't know how a real slave can become under debt to his master.

But the only clue that would point to him being a runaway slave is that he was in jail away from his master's home. But if he was a servant and allowed to travel from the home he could get into trouble for any number of reasons. He was "worthless" after all.

As I said just now to someone else, I believe that Paul's "slave to Christ" analogy breaks down if you go with this notion of indentured servitude. Are we to serve Christ temporarily? Is it only for life? We don't serve him in the afterlife? If it's supposed to be eternal servitude, that's slavery. Paul always means slavery and nothing else. Also it was pointed out by hedrick in post #154 that indentured servitude did not exist in the time and place that Paul lived.

 

[rjs330]

According to you, Paul could have invoked his authority to free a slave, yet chose to put the idea out there as a suggestion in a loving tone. Meanwhile he harshly rebukes church members for consensual sex acts which he deems immoral. Do you find consensual homosexuality to be more in need of correction than slavery?

Paul's ethics were inferior to ours, so I don't think he got them from a wise and benevolent God. Therefore his writings are not divinely inspired. Since they were included in the canon, it follows that said God did not oversee the canonization process and thus he does not endorse the Bible. It follows that if an almighty God exists, he/she/it is not Jehovah.



Then why does Peter tell slaves to obey even their cruel/harsh masters?

Well it seems,that Paul was dealing with a bond servant issue and not a slave issue. As you have been shown there was a,difference. And you have been shown how the church worked to free slaves. We don't know why Onesimus was a bond servant except there appeared he owed him money. We don't know how that went down. What we do know is that Paul appealed to Philemon on the basis of love because he wanted him to,do the right thing on the basis of love and not only because he was commanded to.

As you have been shown Bondservents are not the same as slaves. The principles of scripture of love and gentleness and care of your fellow man allow people to pay their debts and for the masters to treat the debtor with love, gentleness and with respect. They were not to be,looked at as mere chattel but as "brothers". Back then when you owed money the person could have you tossed into prison, they could take your wife and kids until you paid. Many chose to be,bond servants instead since the laws were different than today's laws regarding debt that was the only option left. You couldn't just declare bankruptcy like today. The debt needs to be paid. We are commanded to pay out debts. It would have been wrong to stiff someone. There is no moral issue with paying your debt by offering servitude.

You know why Peter told people to obey harsh masters. You read the passage.

 

[Moral Orel]

Also it was pointed out by hedrick in post #154 that indentured servitude did not exist in the time and place that Paul lived.

I totally missed that... But that is extremely convincing. I looked it up since he only mentioned it in Wikipedia, but here's a better source on Nexum. @ewq1938 you should read this too since we've been discussing whether Rome outlawed any practices of the Jews in terms of servitude. As it turns out, they outlawed indentured servitude, so if they talk about a slave, it can't be a bondservant. An excerpt here:

The Lex Poetelia (B.C. 326) alleviated the condition of the nexi. So far as we can understand its provisions, it set all the nexi free or made them soluti, and it enacted that for the future there should be no nexum (cautumque in posterum ne necterentur), and that no debtor should for the future be put in chains. Addictio however still continued in force after the Lex Poetelia, as we see in several instances. It appears from the Lex Galliae Cisalpinae (c.21, 22), that in the case of other actions there was only a Possessio Bonorum, but in the case of pecunia certa credita there was personal execution. The enactment of the Lex Julia which introduced the Bonorum Cessio, and gradual changes in society, must have diminished the frequency of the Addictio. In the system of Justinian, Nexum did not exist, for the use of aes et libra in legal transactions had ceased.​

See, Rome made it illegal to use yourself as collateral for a loan, so indentured servitude was outlawed, not slavery just for the Jews.

 

[rjs330]

But you would only burn with passion if you were trying to live a life of celibacy. Again, I find it highly ironic that you say that these verses directed at the Corinthians are directed to everyone for all time and mean something they don't explicitly say, and yet you'll say, "he was only talking to the rich man, not everyone for all time".
How many Christians even attempt to lead a life of celibacy? How many plan on having a spouse from the time they are kids because their parents teach them that is what people do? Why are you ignoring that people are better off spouseless? It could just as well mean, "if you're going to burn with passion if you live a life of celibacy, then set out to find yourself a wife". Since it never says, "wait till you're married to do it".


It doesn't just say, "don't deny him" it says the man has authority over her body. I'm not saying that Paul says "rape her" but he doesn't say not to, and it does sound an awful lot like the man has authority to make her body do what he wants, so why shouldn't the man? Remember to throw out all of your knowledge about how harmful rape is in your response. Just think about dishes.


Actually, there have been. Not many, but there is "Does porneia mean fornication" by Bruce Malina. jstor.org has it on file, but you have to register to read it (free). Theres a retort on there too by Joseph Jensen, but Jensen starts by trying to claim the OT had a problem with it, even though that clearly isn't true. I've showed that in this thread more than once. And if the Jews didn't have a problem with extra marital relations (many, maybe most, still don't) and the Romans and the Greeks and the yada yada didn't have a problem with it, who are these people you've mentioned that knew it meant extra marital sex whenever someone in the NT said "porneia"?

More importantly, though, we ought to look at what "fornication" meant when it was used to translate "porneia". The original use was for prostitution, and prostitution alone starting in 1300. Sexual immorality in general was added over time after it was used in the KJV. Check out this link that has a ton of excerpts from old usages of the word "fornication". The page looks sloppy, but the excerpts are real and all in one place (instead of me pasting 20 links here). Just because we mean "sex between unmarried people" today, doesn't mean that's what it meant all this time or when it went into the Bible. I found it while looking for word studies on "porneia" but it's still interesting.

All that being said, I'm going to drop the "no sex till marriage" argument and let you have the last word. As another bit of a concession, I don't see any justification for a man to control another woman's body who isn't his wife, even if extra-marital relations are okay. I still stand by the fact that it being a sin is murky at best. If the Bible says something explicit, then I recognize that. Nothing explicit is said about extra marital sex, and I don't think a vaguely written letter to the Corinthians is enough to infer instructions for everyone for all time. The last word on the subject is yours.

Here is the full passage regarding husbands and wives.

The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
1 Corinthians 7:3‭-‬5 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1co.7.3-5.ESV

Even though each party has authority over the other in this matter, there is no authorisation for the use of force. We are to treat each other with kindness and gentleness.

Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
1 Corinthians 13:4‭-‬7 ESV
http://bible.com/59/1co.13.4-7.ESV

Husbands are to love their wives. Is forcing your spouse to have sex patient, kind? Love does not insist on its own way. Forcing sex is insisting on your own way and is not love. Love bears all things. If you don't get sex you bear it with patience and kindness.

There is no scripture that encourages us to force sex upon our partner. None. Can you point to scripture to encourage our partner to do the right thing? Sure. But the choice is theirs.