This thread is about morality and is titled the same. Slavery is a moral issue and is mentioned in the OP. Until you address the issue, there's nothing for us to discuss.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
3. If you want to suggest that We believe slavery is great then start a different thread claiming so.
I didn't say anything about OT law in the bit you quoted of me.Ge 9 has nothing to do or say about OT Law. You do understand the purpose of OT Law, right?
If you can't explain to me why there isn't a contradiction without me already being a believer then there is nothing to discuss because you are at an impasse for what you can explain.So your mind is made up and closed.....then why are you here?
When we spoke in the other thread we were talking about OT law and NT and you wondered why it appeared that we seemed to,cherry pick. I said we didn't and suggested a,separate thread and you said you did. I thought you linked to that and this was the thread. So I am responding to,our,original conversation on that subject and said I would do so. I've answered your question and shown you how we don't with scriptures.This thread is about morality and is titled the same. Slavery is a moral issue and is mentioned in the OP. Until you address the issue, there's nothing for us to discuss.
If you want to talk about what Jesus said, you must put it in context of OT Law which He lived under.I didn't say anything about OT law in the bit you quoted of me.
It is not so much an impasse for what I can explain (though there are more qualified individuals) it is rather your capacity to really understand....again I refer to 1 Corinthians 2:14 which I mentioned earlier. Do you understand the role of the Holy Spirit in our comprehension of scripture?....or do you think it is a simple matter of reading and understanding?If you can't explain to me why there isn't a contradiction without me already being a believer then there is nothing to discuss because you are at an impasse for what you can explain.
When we spoke in the other thread we were talking about OT law and NT and you wondered why it appeared that we seemed to,cherry pick. I said we didn't and suggested a,separate thread and you said you did. I thought you linked to that and this was the thread. So I am responding to,our,original conversation on that subject and said I would do so. I've answered your question and shown you how we don't with scriptures.
You now know the truth. If you have other questions concerning this issue I will,be happy to respond.
You asked me for a quote from Genesis. I assumed you knew that "The Law" didn't exist until Moses who didn't make an appearance in that book, so I don't understand why you would expect a quote from Genesis to have anything about "The Law" in it.If you want to talk about what Jesus said, you must put it in context of OT Law which He lived under.
It can't be explained by you to me. Is that better? I don't care if you think the burden is on my inability to understand something or not. You're claiming that something in any other context than the Bible that would be considered contradictory is not contradictory and I just don't understand why it isn't because I'm not a believer. If you have to resort to "you won't understand until you believe" then I consider that a point for me. You don't think there's ever anything wrong with the contradictions in the Bible, though you can't demonstrate it to anyone except those that already agree with you. If a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist said the same thing to you about their holy text, you'd be in the same position I'm in.It is not so much an impasse for what I can explain (though there are more qualified individuals) it is rather your capacity to really understand....again I refer to 1 Corinthians 2:14 which I mentioned earlier. Do you understand the role of the Holy Spirit in our comprehension of scripture?....or do you think it is a simple matter of reading and understanding?
You haven't yet explained away Christian cherry picking.
In post #8 you said,
"However, there is still sin. Read 1 John. So, what sin is there? Do we just cherry pick? Since we are no longer under the law, how do we know what sins are? They are all outlined by Jesus and the apostles."
You're saying that we're under the new covenant, which is the New Testament. This is the standard answer we've all heard a million times and it adds no clarification whatsoever.
The whole point of cherry picking is Christians avoiding topics they don't like. You're doing that right now! If you can't address slavery in your system of morality, then you're cherry picking. You're ignoring the things you don't like and you are not clarifying your position. How do I know you don't just go with the "Love thy neighbor" line and ignore the slavery in the New Testament? You can cherry pick, even in the New Testament, so telling me that we're only working in the New Testament does not make it clear to me you've stopped cherry picking.
When I seek clarification, you continue to parrot, "I've explained how we don't cherry pick and I'll be happy to answer any other questions." Yet you continually ignore my question on slavery. I really don't care if you regard it as a separate question or as a followup question on the cherry picking issue. Just answer it or stop wasting my time. You've now got me extremely aggravated and more convinced than ever that Christians cherry pick.
If this means "no slavery" then it also means "no cinnamon".She also bought cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wheat, cattle, sheep, horses, chariots, and bodies—that is, human slaves.
I'm going to need to see the Bible verses for these claims. A "no sex until marriage" verse and a "no violence in general" verse.Yes it is. Sex with anyone but your wife is forbidden, rape or not. And there is the matter of violence which is also sinful.
It is in Acts, I just mentioned, Peter taught we are to retain from Judaism revised in the Spirit of the author, not to fornicate.I'm going to need to see the Bible verses for these claims. A "no sex until marriage" verse and a "no violence in general" verse.
I know in the OT prostitution was legal under the Law, so there is no "no sex before marriage" rule there. Heck, a married man could sleep with a single lady and it wouldn't be adultery back then. But there might be in the NT I haven't seen. I'm going to get out in front of this one though and point out that when the NT says "fornication" they don't mean specifically "sex before marriage". It means all sexual immorality (pornea), but you'll have to look back at the original Greek to see that or use a very literal interpretation of the Bible. I like ESV, personally.
And I've seen some verses that cater specifically to things like hitting and striking, but not violence in general. You don't need to beat someone to rape them. I think that's what NV meant by "non-violent". I'm sure he didn't mean to discount how traumatizing rape is. Even consenting because of a fear of perceived violence is still rape, but it isn't actually violent in any normal use of the word.
Also take into account that a woman's body is not her own, and she is forbidden by the Bible to deny intercourse to her husband (and vice versa for men). So as long as he doesn't beat her, it can be argued that he is just taking what is his.
NV dropped this one way too easily.
I've been reading the exchange between you two and I'm going to pin the problem with this bit on NV, to be honest. He asked a vague question, and the OP only referenced an OT verse. You gave a vague and unreferenced reply, which was appropriate for how he worded his question. So how about this NT verse? It came up in another thread (people love talking about slavery in the Bible).So you've been given the answer and you refuse to accept it. Okay. I can't work,with that.
Get irritated if you like but I answered your question on cherry picking. You just don't like the answer. You asked why we say some things are sinful and then ignore things like eating she'll fish or wearing mixed garments is not. I answered that and provided scriptures to,prove it. And you ignored that saying it wasn't good enough. Well I can't do anymore than give you scriptures and an explanation. Of you refuse to accept that and go on saying we cherry pick and use the same old examples then you are being dishonest because you have the answer plain as day.
And no I don't believe in slavery.
Can you point that out to me please? Acts is a big book. And again, are they speaking specifically about sex before marriage, or sexual immorality? Because if it's the latter, then you need to show where sex before marriage is sexually immoral.It is in Acts, I just mentioned, Peter taught we are to retain from Judaism revised in the Spirit of the author, not to fornicate.
Eating cinnamon or buying cinnamon when others are poor can be looked upon as wrong. Living for yourself and not the other is disliked by Jesus and in Isaiah.If this means "no slavery" then it also means "no cinnamon".
Never mind, I found it:It is in Acts, I just mentioned, Peter taught we are to retain from Judaism revised in the Spirit of the author, not to fornicate.
Ooh! Then I think you might just side with me in the "Sell all that you own" thread. Neat!Eating cinnamon or buying cinnamon when others are poor can be looked upon as wrong. Living for yourself and not the other is disliked by Jesus and in Isaiah.
We decided much later that there is inherent harm with owning another person. The Bible says no such thing. The OT says to not beat them too badly, and there's probably some NT stuff about not beating them at all. But owning another person as property is its own immorality that isn't addressed. It was simply viewed as a social status in the economy, the same way we still have employers and employees. Except now we decided that employees should have more rights and employers should have less rights.But the last in the list, slavery is living for yourself and using hurtfully, the other one.
It actually is in there. Jesus mentioned things should be as they were in the start. A man and a woman, two set apart in marriage, no divorce. Then also no slavery, freedom in the garden of Eden with grace and apples and cinnamon... slavery was a tragedy that beset the Hebrews. Starting with the story of Joseph sold into slavery by his brothers. Then he rose to prime minister showing God's will. Israel was taught not to make slaves like they were made slaves, when God freed them.Ooh! Then I think you might just side with me in the "Sell all that you own" thread. Neat!
But if that list means anything on the list is always bad, then cinnamon is always bad, and so is wine, but wine is quite explicitly not bad according to the NT. In excess, sure, but not completely.
All that list really says is that merchants all over the world are sad to see Babylon go because they can't sell as many wares. It doesn't chastise the merchants for selling them, and it doesn't chastise other nations for buying them.
We decided much later that there is inherent harm with owning another person. The Bible says no such thing. The OT says to not beat them too badly, and there's probably some NT stuff about not beating them at all. But owning another person as property is its own immorality that isn't addressed. It was simply viewed as a social status in the economy, the same way we still have employers and employees. Except now we decided that employees should have more rights and employers should have less rights.
You can go ahead an give Christians the credit for championing that cause, as I'm sure there's a strong case to be made, but that morality developed later, after the Bible was written. Seems to NV and me and the rest of us heathens that it ought to have been in there from the start.
I would agree with this. Would you say that we should continue to evolve our ethics as society evolves even if it seems to go against the Bible which was written for a different time period?He didn't send down a timeless textbook on ethics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?