Morality

[Nihilist Virus]

3. If you want to suggest that We believe slavery is great then start a different thread claiming so.

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.

 

[hedrick]

I think it's silly to argue this one. The Bible reflects the times. God worked in history. He didn't send down a timeless textbook on ethics. Cultures in OT times, and to a lesser extent NT times, were brutal by today's standards. You can see progressive tendencies at times, particularly in the prophets and Jesus. But still, I would't want to live in either the 10th Cent BC or the 1st Cent AD, even among Jews and Christians, respectively.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ge 9 has nothing to do or say about OT Law. You do understand the purpose of OT Law, right?

I didn't say anything about OT law in the bit you quoted of me.

So your mind is made up and closed.....then why are you here?

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.

 

[rjs330]

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.

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.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I didn't say anything about OT law in the bit you quoted of me.

If you want to talk about what Jesus said, you must put it in context of OT Law which He lived under.

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.

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?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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 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.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you want to talk about what Jesus said, you must put it in context of OT Law which He lived under.

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.

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?

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.

 

[rjs330]

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.

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.

 

[Deadworm]

This video documents the slave Onesimus's journey from slave to Christian convert, to freed Bishop of Ephesus (through Paul's advocacy) and a key figure in collecting Paul's letters in an important stage in the formation of the NT.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...4D07342AAC7A6E9BF8694D07342AAC7A6E9&FORM=VIRE

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Revelation 18 NLT
1After all this I saw another angel come down from heaven with great authority, and the earth grew bright with his splendor. 2He gave a mighty shout:

“Babylon is fallen—that great city is fallen!

She has become a home for demons.

She is a hideout for every foula spirit,

a hideout for every foul vulture

and every foul and dreadful animal.b

3For all the nations have fallenc

because of the wine of her passionate immorality.

The kings of the world

have committed adultery with her.

Because of her desires for extravagant luxury,

the merchants of the world have grown rich.”

4Then I heard another voice calling from heaven,

“Come away from her, my people.

Do not take part in her sins,

or you will be punished with her.

5For her sins are piled as high as heaven,

and God remembers her evil deeds.

6Do to her as she has done to others.

Double her penaltyd for all her evil deeds.

11The merchants of the world will weep and mourn for her, for there is no one left to buy their goods. 12She bought great quantities of gold, silver, jewels, and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk, and scarlet cloth; things made of fragrant thyine wood, ivory goods, and objects made of expensive wood; and bronze, iron, and marble. 13She also bought cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wheat, cattle, sheep, horses, chariots, and bodies—that is, human slaves.

Slavery's last mention in the word of God. And the last traded item in the passage list.

At the time of the controversy of Jewish law, saying the Christians from among Jews and from gentiles, should be circumcised, Peter and John... the apostles took the stance that we do not need all of Judaism only not eating blood, and not fornicating. Slave or not, not fornicating. We are not under law.

Also at this time the first Christians, just born, had an economy unlike the Romans or Jews of their time, and not like that of Rome under Constantine. Honesty to the Holy Spirit was greatly vital and Annanias who lied when bringing his offering died.

The sexual morality, the economy, the revision of Judaism under Christ and His apostles together with the last mention of slavery in the Bible, probably by John in his old age, means slavery was condemned gently in the NT.

 

[Moral Orel]

She also bought cinnamon, spice, incense, myrrh, frankincense, wine, olive oil, fine flour, wheat, cattle, sheep, horses, chariots, and bodies—that is, human slaves.

If this means "no slavery" then it also means "no cinnamon".

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

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.

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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).

Let all who are under a yoke as bondservants regard their own masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be reviled. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful on the ground that they are brothers; rather they must serve all the better since those who benefit by their good service are believers and beloved. 1 Timothy 6:1-2​

You can be a slave owner and a Christian, as explicitly stated by the Bible. Is it morally wrong to own another human being as property? Why does the Bible neglect to say that it is?

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

If this means "no slavery" then it also means "no cinnamon".

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.
But the last in the list, slavery is living for yourself and using hurtfully, the other one. Jesus taught to love the neighbour and not to divorce, even though Moses' law permitted it. Therefore all concessions for hard heartedness must be revised.

Most Christians don't think slavery is Gospel righteousness. Because of common sense. Common sense atheists here have, for which reason they don't believe in slavery and without the Gospel they would.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

Never mind, I found it:

...but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. Acts 15:20

See? Sexual immorality, not fornication. Sex before marriage is not a bad thing in OT Law, so this verse doesn't say it carries over because there's nothing about sex before marriage to carry over.

 

[Moral Orel]

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.

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.

But the last in the list, slavery is living for yourself and using hurtfully, the other one.

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.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

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.

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.

 

[Moral Orel]

He didn't send down a timeless textbook on ethics.

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?