Morality

[Moral Orel]

1Co 6:16 Or do you not know that he being joined to a harlot is one body? For He says, The two shall be one flesh.

1Co 6:17 But he being joined to the Lord is one spirit.

1Co 6:18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits fornication sins against his own body.

1Co 6:19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in you, whom you have of God? And you are not your own,

1Co 6:20 for you are bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God's. MKJV

This is the closest thing to a condemnation that I can see. But it still falls short of condemning extra-marital relations. To begin with, it is clearly talking about prostitution in the beginning. And it condemns becoming "one-flesh" with a prostitute, so like I have before, I'll give you that prostitution became a sin in the NT. Much like how divorce was not a sin in the OT, but became a sin in the NT, prostitution is now off the books.

However, "becoming one flesh" with someone obviously isn't a sin in and of itself. When it is done as part of a marriage, it's A-Okay, obviously you agree with that. So there is only condemnation of "becoming one flesh" with prostitutes. No condemnation of "becoming one flesh" with anyone else under any other circumstances.

 

[Moral Orel]

Fornication does mean sex outside of,marriage. The Greek word used has a definition that includes a number of things including fornication which is sex outside of marriage. We use words to define other words. I'm this case one of the words used to define porniea is fornication. Fornication is defined as sex,outside of marriage.

I know what the English definition of fornication is, obviously. You need to show where extra-marital relations were added to the list of sexually immoral things. Just because the Bible has some incorrect translations, does not mean that extra-marital intercourse is condemned.

 

[Moral Orel]

Once again you miss what it is Jesus is talking about here; you think it is about beating or not beating servants when it is really about his 2nd coming.

Once again? I didn't say anything about the Bible! How could I miss what was being said when I wasn't talking about it?
You think you know what I think, but it's only because you don't read what I post and respond to the caricature of me that you've invented. I haven't said a single word about what His metaphor was to represent. Though I did acknowledge, which you ignored, that it did represent something spiritual. You've got to pay attention.

 

[rjs330]

I know what the English definition of fornication is, obviously. You need to show where extra-marital relations were added to the list of sexually immoral things. Just because the Bible has some incorrect translations, does not mean that extra-marital intercourse is condemned.

It's not an incorrect translation. It's a meaning of the Greek word. An incorrect translation would be If the Greek word meant black but was translated white instead.

http://biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm

Fornication is one of the meanings of the word. A word study shows that fornication is an appropriate definition included in,the meaning of the Greek word. Thus fornication is prohibited and sinful

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

 

[Moral Orel]

Joseph finding Mary pregnant did not want her disgraced so planned to end the engagement secretly. Jesus like King David broke the law and ate show bread, so there is an understanding, and oral tradition and above the law there is the author, the Spirit of Truth.

Joseph did as he was told in a vision to marry Mary. I don't see the relevance of Jesus and David eating bread reserved for priests though, so you'll have to expand on that one.

I think I covered all of them. I'll keep looking it over to see if I didn't address anything, but feel free to point something out if you think I missed it.

 

[Uber Genius]

"I can improve upon the morality of the Bible if I copy it word for word and then reverse its position on slavery." -Matt Dillahunty

I believe that when it comes to morality, atheism defeats theism simply by remaining silent. Abrahamic religions contain commandments, concessions and/or encouragements for all of the following:

Abortion Numbers 5:11-31
Rape Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Slavery Leviticus 25:44-46
Genocide 1 Samuel 15:2-3
Mass murder Genesis 7


Compounding the problem is 1 John 3:4, which says,

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

The law is the law of Moses. Therefore, I have my doubts when a Christian claims that certain laws of the Old Testament are a covenant between Jehovah and Israel while other laws in the Old Testament are absolute and/or eternal. If this is your position, please list for us the laws which have expired and I will assume that all other laws are still in effect. If your position on morality is more complicated than that, please elucidate it and we will engage from there.

The identifiable argument of this thread:

1.) If Biblical morality (the law) can be improved, then it is from man and not from God.
2.) The law can be improved.
3.) The law is from man and not from God.
4.) We are not accountable to the law.
5.) Christ's death and resurrection, if they occurred, were pointless.
6.) Christianity is pointless.

Somewhat entertaining. A few questions:

Why equivocate morality with God's law?

Especially when the law is said to powerless to produce good, and described as weak and ineffectual? The misunderstanding may be the cut and paste proof-text approach to representing the ideas in scripture.

Why do you think people who have studied the Bible would let you get away with misrepresenting the context of the law?

I can ground goodness in God's nature, what does the atheist ground "goodness" in?

The poster-boy for atheism has this to say about morality,

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Richard Dawkins

How is that an improvement over love your neighbor and pray for you enemy?

A simple history class as a college freshman would have educated you about the fallacy of anachronism. Simply put it is applying modern cultural standard to ancient cultures in a way that deletes the context. (We see that quite a bit in this post).

The rest of your points seem to be non-sequiturs (meaningless complaints that don't engage the topic)

If god does not exist culturally independent morals don't exist.
But cultural independent morals do exist (e.g. Hitler was wrong to wipe out the Jews even if he had won WW2 and converted everyone in the world to agree with his point of view)
Therefore God exists.

That is the moral argument, or at least one version of it, not a strawman, anachronistic, out-of-context, complaint about how an ancient culture's morals weren't like our morals 3500 years removed.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's not an incorrect translation. It's a meaning of the Greek word. An incorrect translation would be If the Greek word meant black but was translated white instead.

http://biblehub.com/greek/4202.htm

Fornication is one of the meanings of the word. A word study shows that fornication is an appropriate definition included in,the meaning of the Greek word. Thus fornication is prohibited and sinful

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

It's an incorrect translation in that if the Greek meant "color" it was translated "red". Red is a color, so it isn't wrong enough to say, "somebody doesn't know what they're doing" like we would if it was black and white. Trouble is, it isn't as obvious as "red". It's translated more like to "morple" and then said that morple is a color and also means color. Maybe morple is a color, but the NT needs to come out and say that since the OT quite clearly shows it isn't a color yet.

From biblehub.com Strong's has this to say:

a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general​

From your other source:

Thus by the time of Christ porneia clearly means more than just adultery. In the words of D.A. Carson "Porneia covers the entire range of such sins [sexual immorality]... and should not be restricted unless the context requires it." The Louw-Nida lexicon defines porneia as "to engage in sexual immorality of any kind." John Groves in A Greek and English Dictionary defines porneia "all kinds of lewdness".​

Now it goes on to say that you have to consider context and you can't plug a general all encompassing term into a place that means something specific, such as when Jesus uses it about the heart. Like I showed with 1 Corinthians 5, Paul must have wanted to include incest when he used the same term. So you have to have a "no sex outside of marriage" context to say that it was used to say "no sex outside of marriage". Where is that?

Your second source jumps to the conclusion it means "sexual activity with a person one is not married to" based on what? I swear, the article jumps straight from talking about adultery to this conclusion. Where is the reason for this jump that was omitted from the article?

 

[rjs330]

It's an incorrect translation in that if the Greek meant "color" it was translated "red". Red is a color, so it isn't wrong enough to say, "somebody doesn't know what they're doing" like we would if it was black and white. Trouble is, it isn't as obvious as "red". It's translated more like to "morple" and then said that morple is a color and also means color. Maybe morple is a color, but the NT needs to come out and say that since the OT quite clearly shows it isn't a color yet.

From biblehub.com Strong's has this to say:

a. properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general​

From your other source:

Thus by the time of Christ porneia clearly means more than just adultery. In the words of D.A. Carson "Porneia covers the entire range of such sins [sexual immorality]... and should not be restricted unless the context requires it." The Louw-Nida lexicon defines porneia as "to engage in sexual immorality of any kind." John Groves in A Greek and English Dictionary defines porneia "all kinds of lewdness".​

Now it goes on to say that you have to consider context and you can't plug a general all encompassing term into a place that means something specific, such as when Jesus uses it about the heart. Like I showed with 1 Corinthians 5, Paul must have wanted to include incest when he used the same term. So you have to have a "no sex outside of marriage" context to say that it was used to say "no sex outside of marriage". Where is that?

Your second source jumps to the conclusion it means "sexual activity with a person one is not married to" based on what? I swear, the article jumps straight from talking about adultery to this conclusion. Where is the reason for this jump that was omitted from the article?

I don't know why you felt the need to try and correct my example of mistranslation. My example is solid. I get what you are saying though. You are saying that the translation is not as clear as it seems to be.

From Bible Hub.
Strong's Concordance
porneia: fornication
Original Word: πορνεία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: porneia
Phonetic Spelling: (por-ni'-ah)
Short Definition: fornication, idolatry
Definition: fornication, whoredom; met: idolatry.

Did you ever consider that this clarification you keep wanting is not needed. The word was clearly understood to mean fornication along with all other sexual impurity. Why would God need to clarify something that was clear to begin with? What is happening today is that people want to try and manipulate that which was clearly understood to not be so clear after all. With all the references in the NT to sexual purity including fornication.

Paul in I Corinthians 7 tells us that we should have our own wife or husband because of sexual immorality. The implication is clear hear on the need for sexual purity. Again Paul doesn't say girlfriend or female partner he specifies wife. It is better to marry (wife) again than to burn with sexual passion. Why does he specify marriage rather than just saying if you are burning with passion, just have sex?

There is plenty of word studies on this subject that do indicate that porneia did cover premarital sex.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And that's a very important distinction to make whether he was an indentured servant as described in the OT or a really-real slave. If he was a guy who racked up a bunch of debt and had to repay it through indentured servitude, then that was a result of his choices. Slavery doesn't involve a choice on the part of one person. If his situation was a result of his choices, and if it was temporary, then I wouldn't classify it as inherently immoral and I definitely wouldn't ever use the word "slavery". We outlawed it because it was so abused. But it is possible to use the practice ethically and fairly. Just not likely.

He wasn't "free" in the same sense that a person in prison is not "free" but I wouldn't compare that to slavery.

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).

 

[ewq1938]

Okay, then we shouldn't be talking about imaginary laws that the Jews had to follow that you have no evidence for existing.

It's the same on eithe5r side of this. You can't prove Jews could own literal slaves, nor can I prove they couldn't.

Where does the NT refer to slaves then? Not to bondservants, but to slaves.

Just because a Greek word can mean a literal slave doesn't mean it has to be used in the NT.

If the Bible doesn't mention something, then the Bible ignored it.

Which is a fallacious argument known as an argument from silence.

Where is your reference that slavery being wrong was common knowledge amongst Christians?

Christian history shows that Christians opposed slavery morally.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

Early Christians liberate slaves at their own expense
In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings “unless to purchase a slave and save a soul” (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves “as an act of piety.” [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, “The City of God,” the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God’s divine plan”.[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]




There is more there is you follow the link plus google will list many other sites detailing these facts.

You argument is circular. Because the masters were Christians, they wouldn't own slaves, because Christians don't own slaves, and that's how you know they weren't supposed to. Why did the Christian masters know they weren't supposed to own slaves?

The Christians masters had servants not slaves. As I said before, I don't believe the Roman's allowed the Jews to have literal slaves because that was a Roman right so the most anyone else would have had were bond servants which is a formal agreement of servitude.

 

[ewq1938]

8 For this reason, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, 9yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love—and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus.* 10I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment. 11Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful* both to you and to me. 12I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you. 13I wanted to keep him with me, so that he might be of service to me in your place during my imprisonment for the gospel; 14but I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced.


Paul wanted to keep Onesimus with him, but recognized that Onesimus was Philemon's property. Paul admits it would be rude to keep Onesimus without permission.


15Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back for ever,16no longer as a slave but as more than a slave, a beloved brother—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.


Now, I realize that some translations use "servant" and some use "slave." But the fact is that Onesimus is not a free man. Therefore, he is a slave.

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.

 

[ewq1938]

Christians, in the epistle days, are thought of as brothers in the Lord. It's likely that the Christians naturally transferred the rule for owning a slave over to Christianity by equating Hebrews with Christians: you could own a Christian slave for six years and an unbelieving slave for life.

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

It is possible that Onesimus feigned conversion to receive this favorable treatment, particularly if his circumcision was circumvented, although that is entirely speculative on my part.

All of it is pure speculation.

Regardless, I think this model fits all interpretations of the data. He was an "indentured servant" in that he was regarded as a Hebrew slave, not a gentile slave, so he would eventually go free. However, he was not free and thus the label of slave was appropriate. Also, if he was not a slave for life then we can see how Paul is just asking for an early release.

And all of this strongly suggests that Paul subscribes to the Old Testament version of slavery with the only change being that gentile Christians = Hebrews.

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

 

[hedrick]

I haven't found any evidence that bond servant means anything different from slave.

 

[ewq1938]

I haven't found any evidence that bond servant means anything different from slave.

The definition clarifies it can mean something other than a slave.

G1401
δοῦλος
doulos
Thayer Definition:
1) a slave, bondman, man of servile condition
1a) a slave
1b) metaphorically, one who gives himself up to another’s will those whose service is used by Christ in extending and advancing his cause among men
1c) devoted to another to the disregard of one’s own interests
2) a servant, attendant
Part of Speech: noun
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1210
Citing in TDNT: 2:261, 182

 

[giftofGod2]

I don't know if this has been mentioned because I haven't read the entire thread, but concerning the biblical view of slavery:

Is it not true that Paul the apostle wrote to Philemon in order to set free the slave of Philemon, Onesimus?

It is a small but important letter in the New Testament.

As the Bible is not about making free people captive, but about setting the captives free.

Now of course in Romans 6, it speaks of how if you are a slave of sin, you are free from righteousness. And if you are set free from sin, you are a slave of righteousness. Yet Paul qualifies this latter statement by saying that he is speaking in human terms because of the infirmity of your flesh.

I see it in all reality as being set free from sin and becoming a son of righteousness. As a son I have different motives for obedience than if I were merely a slave.

Nevertheless a man can become a bondslave, if, after a normal term of slave service, he says, I love my Master and will not leave Him. Exodus 21:1-6. The one who commits to being a bondslave commits to serve His Master for ever.

This is what happened with Peter in John 6 when he said to Jesus, To whom shall we go? You alone have the words of eternal life.

So God may have taken advantage of the fact that there was slavery in sinful cultures and utilized it to outline the attitude that we ought to have when it comes to serving Jesus as our Lord.

There comes a time in all of our lives when we will be faced with the decision to either go free or else to serve Him for ever (if we have been serving Him at all).

But let me just make mention of the fact that in Psalm 110:3 it is told us that the people of the Lord shall be willing in the day of His power.

To me this means that we love Him because He first loved us. We serve Him because He loved us enought to die for us while we were still His enemies.

 

[ewq1938]

I don't know if this has been mentioned because I haven't read the entire thread, but concerning the biblical view of slavery:

Is it not true that Paul the apostle wrote to Philemon in order to set free the slave of Philemon, Onesimus?

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't know why you felt the need to try and correct my example of mistranslation. My example is solid. I get what you are saying though. You are saying that the translation is not as clear as it seems to be.

From Bible Hub.
Strong's Concordance
porneia: fornication
Original Word: πορνεία, ας, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: porneia
Phonetic Spelling: (por-ni'-ah)
Short Definition: fornication, idolatry
Definition: fornication, whoredom; met: idolatry.

Did you ever consider that this clarification you keep wanting is not needed. The word was clearly understood to mean fornication along with all other sexual impurity. Why would God need to clarify something that was clear to begin with? What is happening today is that people want to try and manipulate that which was clearly understood to not be so clear after all. With all the references in the NT to sexual purity including fornication.

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.

Paul in I Corinthians 7 tells us that we should have our own wife or husband because of sexual immorality. The implication is clear hear on the need for sexual purity. Again Paul doesn't say girlfriend or female partner he specifies wife. It is better to marry (wife) again than to burn with sexual passion. Why does he specify marriage rather than just saying if you are burning with passion, just have sex?

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.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

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.

Only stating things against common sense morality if taken out of context as I posted and bolded earlier.

In Corinth, Paul the apostle was a man under duress for his mission, and the others sometimes also or less so, so because of the worry instead of the peace and prosperity, there was the wisdom of it being better to stay single.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's the same on eithe5r side of this. You can't prove Jews could own literal slaves, nor can I prove they couldn't.

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. That's where flying spaghetti monsters come from.

Just because a Greek word can mean a literal slave doesn't mean it has to be used in the NT.

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'm assuming it is "never" because of your next statement:

Which is a fallacious argument known as an argument from silence.

No, I am using words by their definitions. If I, Nick, never mention the Holocaust, then I, Nick, ignore the Holocaust's existence. I would be refusing to acknowledge it's existence. 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". 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.

Christian history shows that Christians opposed slavery morally.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

Early Christians liberate slaves at their own expense
In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings “unless to purchase a slave and save a soul” (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves “as an act of piety.” [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, “The City of God,” the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God’s divine plan”.[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]




There is more there is you follow the link plus google will list many other sites detailing these facts.

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?

The Christians masters had servants not slaves. As I said before, I don't believe the Roman's allowed the Jews to have literal slaves because that was a Roman right so the most anyone else would have had were bond servants which is a formal agreement of servitude.

Again, no. Provide evidence for your imagined restrictions, or stop claiming them as evidence.

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. 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. 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. 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?

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

In Corinth, Paul the apostle was a man under duress for his mission, and the others sometimes also or less so, so because of the worry instead of the peace and prosperity, there was the wisdom of it being better to stay single.

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.