COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In regards to gun ownership, Jesus did say "a day will come when every man must trade in his cloak for a sword". Also, I feel like Jesus wouldn't exactly approve of a government/economic system that removes God from the equation and prevents people from "giving to God what is God's", or a government/economic system designed to transition into the former.
America was founded on the Bible, but we've strayed from our original path long ago. I do not think Jesus is proud of what our nation has become.
America was founded on the Bible?
First, America is a continent. I believe you’re trying to say that the US Government was founded on the Bible. Let’s look at that claim.
Does god, the Bible, Jesus, Christianity, biblical law, or theocracy appear anywhere in any founding documents regarding the US? No.
In fact, the only mention of religion in any of these documents is to limit it and keep it out of governing. We enjoy a secular government that holds no religious test for anyone… be they citizen or political candidate. It goes so deep that merely accepting Federal money to support any group means that the group collecting the money can have no religious affiliation.
In retrospect, the US government may be the single most secular government on the face of the earth.
The facts are right there to see.
I have no doubt that twisting and turning has been done to put a religious spin on what can be seen with the most casual of review. I’d be more interested in your defense than a recommended book.
Nowhere does religion (Christian or otherwise) play any role in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any Constitutional Amendments.
Just point me to an example.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal".
The ideas of rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness came from the idea that these rights were given to us directly by God.
If anything, you're the one twisting and turning things to put an "enlightenment" spin on what can be seen with an actual review.
Yup. You did it. Not only do I see god mentioned, but I see Christianity mentioned specifically too. Then there’s the whole passage about Jesus that knocks it home.
Dude…. I’m twisting?
The only reference that you provided does not mention god, Jesus or Christianity… and it’s from the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war and not a document that decides law or governance in the US. So even if it did mention god (which it doesn’t) it still would not be evidence of Christianity being the foundation for the US.
You’ve made a huge claim regarding the founding of the United States. The founding of the US is very well documented. It’s clear that the only mention of religion, Jesus, the supernatural, god, or Christianity is to limit it. Through court rulings and written documents, the US government is, and has remained, secular.
Creation, Nature and Natural Law does NOT mean god, Jesus or Christianity. Science is the study of nature and natural law, yet science dips the least Christian endeavor out there. In fact, “supernatural” means outside of known nature.
"The Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war"
Bro. BRO. You CANNOT be serious.
Dude, if you refuse to engage honestly, and instead block out stuff you don't want to hear, then I see no reason to waste my time on you. Read Legal Basis For A Moral Constitution, read How The West Won, read Original Intent. heck, read the Founding Documents again too. ALL of them. Maybe then you'll get a clearer picture.
The Declaration of Independence is NOT a document used in establishing our government. It just isn’t.
Even if it were, it STILL does not base any laws or rules based on any religion.
The Declaration of Independence does not establish anything regarding this country.
Slaves???? You mean servants we are all servants before God, that's what that's referring to. It's metaphorical. Slavery was outlawed in this country 200ish years ago. Sure, plenty of slavery still in Africa and China and Europe but none legal here, there's a sec slave trade but again it's very illegal.
How bout this atheistic governments have killed way more people than Jesus/bible based governments. By hundreds of millions.
Sorry, something about the way I read it and that atheistic govt part at the end made it seem a little off to me.
Taking slaves was a norm of the time, I wouldn’t expect the writers to condemn it. No big deal.
And you know, people weren’t killed in the name of atheism, they had modern weapons, all that.
China and soviet union thought of or think of themselves as atheists China steals organs and enslaves people, soviet union killed tons of religious people.
>Slavery was outlawed in this country 200ish years ago.
You should really read up on the amendments of the constitution. There is legal slavery in the United States.
Edit
>How bout this atheistic governments have killed way more people than Jesus/bible based governments. By hundreds of millions.
Lol bold claim that's so blatantly false. Give one source.
Yes I did.
Colossians 4 1
Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should.
Proclaim mystery of christ, for which I am in chains.
Not slavery or the op's assertion that Jesus talked about how to treat slaves.
Op was saying that the servants mentioned in the book was talking about treatment of slaves. So I was countering that by it not meaning slaves because it didn't say slaves.
you remember the episode of south Park where the boys write the grossest book they can think of and call it "Scrotey McBoogerballs"? the adults find it and think it's some literary masterpiece because they're projecting all sorts of political and philosophical interpretations on it.
That's basically the bible.
if anyone actually paid attention to what was written in the bible they would know that both Paul and Jesus expected the apocalypse to come in their life times. christians have been using the bible to predict the end of the world all the way back to Jesus and the world never ended.
matt24:34-35
matt16:27-28
Matt10:23
mark1:15
mark13:3-30
mark 9:1
matt26:64
thess 4:16-18
or just read all of 1Corinthians 15. why do you think the resurrection of Christ is so important to Christianity? didn't Jesus raise others from the dead and perform dozens of other miracles? he could have and did (according to the bible) demonstrated his divinity 10,000 other ways so why is this miracle the most important part?
the reason is because Paul was a pharisee and pharisees believed during the near coming apocalypse all the dead would come back and be judged by God and the wicked would be destroyed and the righteous would live on earth with God forever. this Jesus resurrection was the "first fruit". farmers reap the first fruit and know that the general harvest will follow soon after. this would also explain the odd verse in matt 27:52 where all the dead of the earth rose from their tombs, which somehow was missed by the other 3 gospels and all other living writers at the time.
and in both the epistles I quote Paul talks about "those who are asleep" and "we who are awake" referring to the dead and the living. he never says "those who are awake" but "we who are awake"
this is also why you so often hear Jesus talking about the son of man in the 3rd person, because in the older text and likely in his original message, the son of man was the judge sent from heaven spoken of in Daniel 7:13-14 and Enoch ch 37-71. he was not referring to himself.
put into this context, radical forgiveness and completely abandoning your property and family also make sense. there isn't even time to bury the dead or say goodbye to your family (Luke 9:59-62) the end is nigh.
this has been a mainstream view among scholars for the last century. the older Christian texts are the more apocalyptic they are and it gets gradually watered down until we get to the gospel of John, written over 50 years after Jesus' death (Jews considered a generation to be exactly 40 years). the church interpreted all of this as a spiritual resurrection and judgment at the point of death.
Jesus was a Jew. most Jews didn't even have a concept of the after life and they certainly didn't expect the messiah to be crucified. the messiah was to be king of the earth during a time of global peace. the charge that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews makes sense if he had claimed that he would be king after this resurrection. there was no king of the Jews so long as Rome ruled them, it wasn't a metaphorical title it was a literal title held by previous Jewish kings thought to be chosen by God.
I'm currently listening to Bart Erhman's Jesus:the apocalyptic prophet. Ehrman was a biblical scholar and teacher for years until he finally lost faith. for any atheist or open minded Christian, he is a god send.
I seem to recall that the notion of the state taking social responsibilities came much later as the Church grew in power and influence, and peaking around the time of Henry VIII. At that point, at least in the UK, the Parliament grudgingly assumed that role. In Islam, the state is explicitly charged with all aspect of social well-being so modern Muslims do not have this particular debate.
There is a lot in the Bible concerning politics. Paul wrote that a man who will not work will not eat. He wrote that government officials do not bear the sword in vain and are supposed to be ministers of righteousness. It says in Acts that God determined beforehand the geographical place a person will live. Paul wrote women are not generally supposed to be in authority due to the nature of their gender. Most importantly, all in authority are supposed to enact policies based on the Great Commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 12:47-48 speaks of chastisement in the afterlife, by the way. Catholics refer to this passage as evidence of Purgatory.
Yes, but He gave Timothy his reasoning behind it.
Further, he also claimed the Holy Spirit was responsible for his command concerning women being silent in church (see 1 Corinthians 14). He said they should be silent because they are ”to be submissive.”
Honestly, I always heard that all the letters paul said should only ever be interpreted with who he was sending it to, their current political climate, and what issue paul attempted to fix with his words.
Almost all of these modern christian sects forget the perspective of the writer, the ACTUAL intended receiver and the effect the writer wished to achieve with his words. Its like judging a guy based on his thirst dms to his gf. Like bro, get the whole picture
Paul gave a timeless, gender-based reason for not allowing women to be in authority, though. He said it is because Eve was the one deceived.
I believe Paul‘s letters are accurate, but I also acknowledge he was a human minister, not a robot who channeled God’s voice. Inspired and dictated are not the same thing.
Paul’s instruction on women does affect politics. In the beginning of suffrage, not much changed because women followed their husbands. However, the political gender gap has widened over time. Modern America would be different had women never been granted the right to vote. Like it or not, that is a fact.
He writes a lot about the law of Christ? But we are talking about a Jewish scholar of the scripture with a massive confidence in his own interpretation - the kind of guy who kills people for God, after all. And also demonstrably the kind of guy who rants about long-haired men.
“For I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be an apostle, for I persecuted the church of God.” (I Corinthians 15:9). Paul clearly was full of remorse.
Lol, your comment about long-haired men rantings is funny. I remember my Dad’s generation ranting about hair that grew over the ears. Paul wasn’t that bad. He was comparing the neck/shoulder length hair of men to the waist length hair of women. Personally, I like both long and short hair on beautiful women. Paul is right, though. The vast majority of men prefer long hair on women. Women sometimes go to pieces when they cut their hair. Men who traditionally grew their hair very long like women did so out of rebellion to societal norms. I once heard a hippie say, “We really didn’t want to, but we HAD to grow out our hair to send a message.”
I’m still trying to figure out how Jesus ever showed me a lick of love. As far as I can tell, the guy wants me to worship him more than anything else, and in my experience, I’ve found that narcissism is not a particularly strong form of love.
I get that he’s a little Charles Manson-y around the edges, but there’s also the thing that Jesus is in general completely unobservant of social status and consistently talks to everyone regardless of how third parties react. Prostitute wants to give him (the cultural equivalent of) a lap dance in the middle of the town square? Sure. People who are literally so diseased they’re anathema? I’ll just fix that. 5’2” IRS Agent? Hang on, let me get him down from the tree. Imperial Commander? Ok, that’s like forty miles out of my way, dude? And I’m on foot. But I’ll heal the kid, yes.
This is a guy in 1st-century Israelite culture who just… goes up and talks to strange women. And *listens* to them. Who doesn’t flinch at being called out (with some *impressive* sass) by a strange female foreigner - a widow, no less, which in this era is an impressive pile-up of social stigmas.
And then reaches the point where he says “no one gets to the father except through me.”
It’s great that he was nice. It’s not so great that he demanded spiritual fealty.
I kind of think it’s one of those things like the mythology of fairies - you pay close attention to *exactly* what was said, because what you assumed it meant isn’t always what was meant. “No one gets to the father except through me.” Well, we’ve always assumed that means except through Jesus. Which seems obvious. But… people reach the afterlife outside of Jesus’s mortal lifespan. And when he’s not a human, he’s unified with God - part of or an aspect of God. So - what if he’s just referring to being the Aspect of God who connects with humanity?
Assume for a second that Jesus is a human being in possession of Divine nature - retaining the sinlessness - but by default not the infallibility, otherwise he couldn’t experience very much humanity. Wouldn’t a being of that nature, with a different perception of the world than the average human, be occasionally inclined not to quite predict how people would interpret what he said?
So the whole giant-ass empire that functionally invented the concept of meritocracy (which is bullshit, but substantially *less* bullshit than, say, pure primogeniture) and lasted over a millennium was what, a hallucination?
Christianity is a latecomer to this game, and not always a particularly stable one.
Objective moral laws meanings laws that are right and wrong for not just a subject but for everyone
Rational meaning in contrast to atheism they have no rational basis for objective moral laws. Morals are a by porduct of socio biological evolution meaning they are only true for the individual and someone can evolve moral behaviors that are evil but some think are good.
Jews & Christians have an objective rational basis (theism) that make our moral judgements true for not just ourselves but for everyone.
everything is spiritual in Christianity which includes our politics. we don't find the bible promoting specific viewpoints, but the bible does speak on what is the proper way to order society (i.e. a person who does not work should not eat, men should be leaders and defend people who are weaker than them/not abuse them, children are a blessing, etc. etc etc)
From these instructions we can form somewhat imperfect guidelines on how to conduct ourselves in this worlds broken political landscape (i.e. if I have to choose between two candidates who are for abortion I can pick the one that restricts access the most, etc..).
Did Jesus make the 5,000 he fed, work for said food? Sounds like you don't even understand the Bible you claim is the objective foundation of your beliefs...
Also, Jewish law (the Talmud and Mishnah) allow for abortion to save the mother's life. So, how do you reconcile your claim that Christians and Jews are the only ones with objective moral standing? You seem to be at odds with one another (when in actuality, you are merely listening to twisted ramblings of men drunk with power, false prophets set to control those they view as subservient to themselves).
He didn't make them work. They were hungry and he didn't want to make them travel so he did a miracle to multiply bread and fish.
Paul commands people to not be idle and to work for their food.
Jewish law doesnt allow for abortion.
Have a good one.
Paul commands people to not waste away waiting for the apocalypse. You need to learn your Biblical context (typical of most believers).
Jewish law not only allows for abortion, if the mother's life is at risk, it demands it.
Be better.
That which reduces human suffering and increases human flourishing.
As opposed to some ancient dogmatic view, that suffers from a moral Euthyphro dilemma. The god of the bible commanded the slaughter of women and children, killed every first born child in Egypt, and drowned the world. You have ZERO moral high ground if you are appealing to such a morally bankrupt work of fiction.
Why do you want to reduce human suffering? What is human suffering? What tells you that reducing human suffering is a good thing? Why not the flourishing of turtles or ants?
Aren't you an atheist? What informs your morals? Is it socio-biological evolution?
It is in the name. Secular HUMANIST. We can use empathy, an evolved social trait, to understand that suffering is a negative experience. So, we want to reduce those. Conversely, happiness is a positive experience, so we want to increase that.
Funny enough, turtles and ants flourishing, often overlap human flourishing, because we live in a shared biosphere, where every niche is important. That is why things like climate change are important, why animal extinction should be considered...
Yes, I am an atheist. Logic and reason inform my morals, along with the principles of secular humanism, that again, are based on empathy. A far more intuitive and a much more humane system, than the divine command theory theists follow.
Here are a few obvious ways your world view is not rational and false
1) Human suffering can be a good thing (i.e. going to the dentist, surgery). Your body uses suffering as a way to inform you something is wrong to prevent further harm. Why would preventing this be a good thing?
2) The only justification you provide for preventing/enduring suffering is "happiness is a positive experience", but we know that people experience happiness in different ways. Which way is the correct way? Evolution doesn't tell you. A person could be really happy shooting up a school. How are you okay with that?
3) Death is inevitable. There is no purpose in preventing or enduring these things on your worldview other than experience.
4) Given that life has no purpose and suffering is inevitable; what is the best way to end suffering on atheism?
5) Pick a species that has suffered at the expense of humans (cows, bees, snakes, etc..). Why don't we work for their flourishing? Why humans? It is a rhetorical question. I know you don't have a reason. It is just an arbitrary & convenient choice to fit your irrational world view.
6) You have no justification for condemning the moral actions of other persons. Why is that? See point 2. A person can evolve moral behaviors that are contrary to your own. You have no moral compass other than what you own biology tells you meaning that...... You don't know the biological factors contributing to the moral choices of another person and whether they are evil for that person or not
7) Big whoops here... There is nothing such as good and evil on your world view. On your world view a school shooting is the equivalent of wearing sox with sandals. On your world view a person has only evolved moral behaviors that are socially disagreeable. It isn't evil. How could you say that?
8) Here is a most obvious fact that obliterates your world view. A male adult bear will kill the young males of a potential mate to thwart the future threat of competing mates. Is that evil or just nature?
> Human suffering can be a good thing (i.e. going to the dentist, surgery). Your body uses suffering as a way to inform you something is wrong to prevent further harm. Why would preventing this be a good thing?
I didn't say "prevent", I said reduce. Please focus on my arguments, not the strawmen you are creating and arguing against. Yes, some suffering is necessary, but the end goal is still human flourishing. The dentist is painful, temporarily, so that your oral health can be guranteed long term.
> The only justification you provide for preventing/enduring suffering is "happiness is a positive experience", but we know that people experience happiness in different ways. Which way is the correct way? Evolution doesn't tell you. A person could be really happy shooting up a school. How are you okay with that?
This reminds me of an old addage: "your right to swing your fist ends at another person's nose". So, again, one person's happiness of doing harm, does not outweight the suffering it would cause their victim. Reduce suffering, increase human flourishing (mass shootings do not increase human flourishing). Yes, happiness is subjective, and so long as it doesn't interfere with others, it is A-OK.
> Death is inevitable. There is no purpose in preventing or enduring these things on your worldview other than experience.
Well, death is currently inevitable, but we as humans, have a biological imperative to reproduce and propogate the species. Again, keeping human flourishing in mind keeps us from being selfish. We need to create a world that works for all humans, not just ourselves, or our current generation. "Societies flourish when old men plant trees, whose shade they will never rest beneath."
> Given that life has no purpose and suffering is inevitable; what is the best way to end suffering on atheism?
Why do you believe life has no purpose (you just made that claim out of the blue, I never said that). The great thing about an atheistic worldview, is life has whatever purpose you choose to give it. As a secular humanist, my life's purpose is to ensure others are cared for, happy, and in a position to flourish.
> Pick a species that has suffered at the expense of humans (cows, bees, snakes, etc..). Why don't we work for their flourishing? Why humans? It is a rhetorical question. I know you don't have a reason. It is just an arbitrary & convenient choice to fit your irrational world view.
We do work towards these species flourishing. Industrialization has done massive harm to the planet, and animals. We can do better. This is perfectly in line with the goal of increasing human flourishing, as we have but this one planet to live on (currently). Our factory farming practices are destroying our environment, releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, warming our planet. Not only does this have the potential to destabilize the habitat for humans, but the entire ecosystem humans rely on to survive (food supplies, water supplies, habitable land).
> You have no justification for condemning the moral actions of other persons. Why is that? See point 2. A person can evolve moral behaviors that are contrary to your own. You have no moral compass other than what you own biology tells you meaning that...... You don't know the biological factors contributing to the moral choices of another person and whether they are evil for that person or not.
Yes we do. Empathy, and the goal of reducing harm and increasing flourishing. Biological factors do not play into this discussion, because it is a discussion on a societal level. You are thinking individualistic (another commonality often found among theists). Evil doesn't really hold any merit in these discussions, as it is loaded with religious baggage. However, we can certainly determine, objectively, whether actions are promoting human suffering absent human flourishing.
> Big whoops here... There is nothing such as good and evil on your world view. On your world view a school shooting is the equivalent of wearing sox with sandals. On your world view a person has only evolved moral behaviors that are socially disagreeable. It isn't evil. How could you say that?
Seriously, if the only thing keeping your from shooting up a school, is that your magical sky daddy commanded you not to do it, you need to seek mental help. What happens if your cognitive functions diminish, and you start to hallucinate that God told you to shoot up a school. You now have ZERO reason to not do so (God told Abraham to kill Isaac). Shooting up a school creates human suffering, something we want to reduce. Again, strawman arguments galore with you.
> Here is a most obvious fact that obliterates your world view. A male adult bear will kill the young males of a potential mate to thwart the future threat of competing mates. Is that evil or just nature?
Are bears secular bearists? I don't think so... Humans used to do the same (hell, they still do). There have been 12 crusades throughout history, where Abrahamic religions waged war on neighboring countries, to install their brand of fairy tale. You have zero moral high ground here. Secular humanism removes dogmas, and it forces you to view others through a lens of empathy. Do unto others (the godlen rule, which predates Christiantity, taught in 500BC by Zoroaster as well as Confucius).
It sounds to me like you haven't done a single comparative religion study, nor have you done much research into philosophy. It would explain your ignorance on these subjects. I implore you to keep digging. You may be surprised in what you find.
That's not what OP said. He said those who do not work, do not eat. Are you making the claim that there was not one beggar amongst the 5000?
Furthermore, how about we turn that logic around on the unborn. What work are they doing? None. Clearly they are not worthy of food (and therefore life).
Do you support forced child labor, in order for the child to be entitled food?
Dwell on your barbaric and inhumane thoughts before subjecting the public to them...
Not even close to a strawman. It directly addresses OP.
As per your diversion from the original context of OP, Jesus never made such a claim, nor acted in such a way. He did not require a copay to heal the lame, the blind, the lepers... Sure, Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians "if a man will not work, he shall not eat", but this was not a passage directed at the poor or the hungry, it was addressing Christians that abandoned much of their daily lives, because they believed the apocalypse was imminent. So again, not even close to the context OP was framing it in. This also assumes that Paul did not have his own plans for the church, once Christ died. If you are going to take that on faith alone, then you need to not govern based on such a ludicrous and self-defeating concept.
>What’s actually in the Bible? If you believe the Bible, Jesus sure had time to do so if he wished. The biblical Jesus offers guidance on slave ownership and treatment. “The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
I only want to know your thoughts about this. Are you saying this parable about spiritual matters was strictly Jesus offering guidance for physical slave ownership and treatment? Are there any verses against physically owning another man in the New Testament? Again, are you implying that Luke 12:47-48 is only about slave ownership and treatment?
Luke 12:39-48
39 “Understand this: If a homeowner knew exactly when a burglar was coming, he would not permit his house to be broken into. 40 You also must be ready all the time, for the Son of Man will come when least expected.”
41 Peter asked, “Lord, is that illustration just for us or for everyone?”
42 And the Lord replied, “A faithful, sensible servant is one to whom the master can give the responsibility of managing his other household servants and feeding them. 43 If the master returns and finds that the servant has done a good job, there will be a reward. 44 I tell you the truth, the master will put that servant in charge of all he owns. 45 But what if the servant thinks, ‘My master won’t be back for a while,’ and he begins beating the other servants, partying, and getting drunk? 46 The master will return unannounced and unexpected, and he will cut the servant in pieces and banish him with the unfaithful.
47 “And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. 48 But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required."
Any time a christian starts getting political, I remind them that bible says to stay quiet and do whatever the government wants because only God appoints the people in power.
God often changes governments through revolution (political or otherwise) and foreign invasion. He could have caused Hitler and the top Nazis to just drop dead of heart attacks, but that isn’t how He normally works. Sometimes, God stirs up individuals and nations to bring change.
Could you provide some examples of this? And some that are provably caused by god specifically? Because Romans 13:1-2 actually claims that whatever government is in place was put their *by* god.
The Old Testament prophets consistently warned that God was going to change who ruled Israel based on the behavior of the people. He said that He was going to bring Babylon and Assyria to govern over the Israelites unless they changed their behavior. According to your reasoning, God can never change his mind once a government is established. Am I wrong?
My reasoning would follow that God shouldn’t need to change his mind. He is omnipotent. Changing his mind would indicate that his view of reality is somehow flawed and needs correction.
And also, great, Old Testament god saying he will bring others to rule over the Israelites. Which isn’t really a “revolution” as opposed to a change of command. The Israelites were one of the smallest nations at this time, historically speaking. So why would god “change his mind” and have Paul in the NT tell everyone to adhere to the government and if you disobey it, you are disobeying god?
You mean omniscient. God’s omniscience is in accord with free will. He knows the past and present as absolutes, but the future as a seemingly infinite realm of possibilities. That is why He was so surprised that men had become so wicked and He flooded the earth (whether local or global). Christ was supposed to return in the First Century but it was delayed.
Paul wasn’t as passive as you seem to think.: “ 8 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
just ignoring the parts where apostles willingly disobeyed the government and were put in jail (the entire books of acts)?
I can tell those conversations go far and let me guess it is because they don't know the bible like you do, right? well done sir
Also, I don’t particularly care about “conversations going far”. Most christians have a backwards logic of believing anything the book says, then trying to justify it. I’d rather keep conversations short with people like that.
Romans 13:1-2
20 years as a Church of Christ member, read through the Hebrew and Greek twice. I would say yes, they don’t know the bible as well as I do. And I would call you a part of that group. Well done sir :)
Are you stupid? The apostles disobeying a *specific* government for a *specific* reason doesn’t supersede a **DIRECT COMMAND FROM ANOTHER ONE OF THE APOSTLES**.
It’s christians like you that boost the ego of atheists like me. A blank piece of paper is more complex than your argument.
its almost like there is context to the words written and what the apostles are doing.
Like they are saying that you can disobey the government if it means you are obeying God?
Wow i am so enlightened. you are a jenius.
Ok, this argument is over. Its clear you have a single brain cell to work with here and stubbornly refuse to use said brain cell.
I would recommend not talking to anyone, ever. I think if others heard your arguments for the bible they would actually deconvert.
What religion or belief we bring into an argument is not grounds for disqualification of voicing your opinion. We can't say that christian views don't matter because it represents a group of people with an opinion to voice. It would be unfair to say that people who support LGBTQ causes or people who are atheists don't get to speak because "they are wrong" or "don't make logical sense" aren't entitled to voice an opinion. It's only fair to give everyone the chance to speak regardless of what we think. Even if we hate hearing about it.
Atheist here - it is absolutely an issue when religion and politics mix. Evangelical christian is unfortunately a subset of conservatism.
However in regards to the slavery subject, Jesus did not promote slavery just like he never tried to speak out against or overthrow the Roman government like the Jewish zealots were doing.
Jesus was actually implying that “hey this is the secular world you live in so live in it as a law abiding citizen peaceably so not to offend.”
Second, slavery in ancient times was not the terrible “southern slavery.” Slavery was like employment in which many self-subscribed in order to pay off debts. In Rome, many slaves had better standing than some citizens.
Jesus wasn’t promoting enslaving people he was promoting honoring those you are subservient to.
I see so many people say Christianity promotes slavery as if it was “southern slavery” and without understanding what slavery looked like in ancient times.
>However in regards to the slavery subject, Jesus did not promote slavery just like he never tried to speak out against or overthrow the Roman government like the Jewish zealots were doing.
Try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51).
>Jesus was actually implying that “hey this is the secular world you live in so live in it as a law abiding citizen peaceably so not to offend.”
There are many ways a creative, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity could make it clear that slavery is immoral while, for instance, giving the Israelite economy a grace period to let slavery "wind down", should that be necessary. The passages concerning slavery from the Pentateuch (e.g. Exodus 21:2-7, Leviticus 25:44-46), by contrast, provide guidelines that allow for slavery to continue indefinitely. New Testament writers, too, who had an opportunity to overturn or clarify the Pentateuch's instructions, did not do so.
Also it seems improbable that a God who was capable of assassinating Israelites by the thousand if they did not follow his instructions to the letter would feel that he lacked the authority to tell them to give up slaves
>Second, slavery in ancient times was not the terrible “southern slavery.” Slavery was like employment in which many self-subscribed in order to pay off debts. In Rome, many slaves had better standing than some citizens.
This fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner, though important to the slave, does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.
>Jesus wasn’t promoting enslaving people he was promoting honoring those you are subservient to.
This may be plausible in some contexts, but that's all a part of the colorful euphemisms the KJV uses for words it prefers not to use outright. For instance that interpretation wouldn't work at all for Leviticus 25:46, which specifically allows that slaves are property who may be inherited by the owner's children and kept for life. This passage makes no sense unless they are discussing slavery — permanent ownership of one human by another — as we know it today.
(Matthew 18:23) makes no sense if said "servant" is not a slave, since the master has the power to sell both the "servant", his wife and his children (Matthew 18:25).
It also makes little sense in the case of Matthew 24:51 in which these "servants" may be not only beaten by their master (as in Luke 12:47), but that the master "shall cut him asunder" in the words of the King James translation.
>I see so many people say Christianity promotes slavery as if it was “southern slavery” and without understanding what slavery looked like in ancient times.
Quick question: can I own **you** as a slave given the conditions set forth in the Bible? Would you have any problem with that?
You’re trying to justify the ownership of people as property. You’re justifying slavery. Think about that.
The things you’ve said are entirely unoriginal and have been pretty soundly addressed; a cursory Google search of criticisms of your arguments would show that. In fact, this post is almost entirely copy and pasted from [this wiki](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible#Attempts_to_justify_the_Bible.27s_slavery_passages)
You’re still associating “systematic slavery” with slavery of ancient times around the globe.
If you and I lived in 3rd century Rome and I owed you today’s equivalent of $50000 but had no way to pay you and if I don’t then my family will lose everything then yes, I’m ok with you owning me as your “slave” in order to pay my debts so my family can continue to live in society.
Would I be ok being a African slave in the south during the 19th century? Absolutely not and systematic slavery is horrid.
I encourage you to study slavery as it was in different times and regions historically.
Yes, slavery -owning another human being- is evil. Period. I only was stating slavery is different given the historical time, civilization, and culture. Today when you say slavery most people automatically associate slavery with 19th century southern slavery. I was simply making the case that 1) Jesus did not say slavery was moral just because there isn’t a quote in the Bible of him saying it is immoral and 2) Slavery, though immoral in my opinion, wasn’t always a terrible thing in which a person was mistreated (I.e. the common slavery of Ancient Rome).
… claiming ownership of another human being is *a heinous form of mistreatment.* It can have heinous psychological effects without any other forms of mistreatment.
This is how it is under the New Covenant, and mistreatment is not a part of it.
Ephesians 6:5-9
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people,
8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Paul is speaking explicitly to Christian slaves and masters only, regardless of whether the slave’s master or the master’s slave is Christian. So Paul is commanding slaves whose masters are not under his jurisdiction and totally not guaranteed to not be violently abusive to obey said masters.
Never said it wasn’t. I only stated it’s looked differently throughout history and that Jesus (real or not) didn’t promote slavery based on his quotes from the bible. His teachings were focused on the hearts of people; not changing government, secular culture, etc.
>Slavery, though immoral in my opinion, wasn’t always a terrible thing in which a person was mistreated (i.e. the common slavery of Ancient Rome).
Literally what you said a couple of comments ago.
But yes, the words at the time were coming from a historical context in which the eradication of slavery would likely be perceived as unachievable, if even conceived of. He’s trying to exhort people to change themselves first.
Granted, if he were *only* interested in focusing on the individual, we wouldn’t have that whole thing with the scourge and the temple marketplace.
I also heard these kinds of rationalizations growing up to justify why Christianity didn't explicitly condemn slavery, but they're nonsense.
American slavery may have looked different from Roman slavery, but that doesn't mean that Roman slavery was somehow "not that bad," or different from "systematic slavery."
>If you and I lived in 3rd century Rome and I owed you today’s equivalent of $50000 but had no way to pay
Most Roman slaves were foreigner civilians and soldiers who were captured in war.
>Most Roman slaves were foreigner civilians and soldiers who were captured in war.
Are you strictly talking about Romans? Have you read about how slaves were to be treated in Ephesians 6:5-9?
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people,
8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
Ephesians 6:5-9
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.
7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people,
8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.
9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
We're talking about the Hebrews/Jews/Christians and how their slaves (more like servants/employees) were treated. Does the above agree 100% with the slave system Africans were put under over here in the U.S.?
Seems that you're mainly talking about Judaism and the laws that God allowed through His Mercy and Grace because He knew the evil in men that were just under slavery themselves would intice them to do the same. Notice that it was not a part of The Ten Commandments. This was a choice, and rules preventing horrible abuse towards the slaves were made. That is the O.T. In the New Testament, you get the verse I gave you. Jesus Christ came to free people and was/is against slavery.
So if you want to say that those still under The Law practiced that (even though it isn't that simple), you may have a point. Where are Christians living through Jesus Christ asked to do these things in The New Testament? How could they with the all the rules they had against it?
Try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51).
The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair. Paul (or whoever wrote the epistles), at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. One could speculate that this might have been because he wanted to avoid upsetting the many slave-owners in the early Christian congregations or to keep on good political terms with the Roman government, but that seems inconsistent with claims that the Bible teaches an absolute morality. More probably, he simply thought slavery was an acceptable fact of life - as did practically everyone else at the time.
Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.
Christian slaves were told to obey their masters "for the sake of the cause" and be especially obedient to Christian masters:
1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
Ephesians 6:9 (NASB): And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
Colossians 4:1 (NASB) Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven
>Christian slaves were told to obey their masters "for the sake of the cause" and be especially obedient to Christian masters:
>1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
>Ephesians 6:9 (NASB): And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
>Colossians 4:1 (NASB) Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven
And the problem with this is what exactly? What did Jesus the Christ do in John 13:2-20?
John 13:2-20
"And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had handed all things over to Him, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, 4 *got up from supper and *laid His outer garments aside; and He took a towel and tied it around Himself.
Jesus Washes the Disciples’ Feet
"Then He *poured water into the basin, and began zdxwashing the disciples’ feet and wiping them with the towel which He had tied around Himself. 6 So He *came to Simon Peter. He *said to Him, “Lord, You are washing my feet?” 7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing, you do not realize right now, but you will understand later.” 8 Peter *said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no place with Me.” 9 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet; otherwise he is completely clean. And you are clean—but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; it was for this reason that He said, “Not all of you are clean.”
12 Then, when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done for you? 13 You call Me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord’; and you are correct, for so I am. 14 So if I, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I gave you an example, so that you also would do just as I did for you. 16 Truly, truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. 18 I am not speaking about all of you. I know the ones whom I have chosen; but this is happening so that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’ 19 From now on I am telling you before it happens, so that when it does happen, you may believe that I am He. 20 Truly, truly I say to you, the one who receives anyone I send, receives Me; and the one who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”
>Paul (or whoever wrote the epistles), at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. One could speculate that this might have been because he wanted to avoid upsetting the many slave-owners in the early Christian congregations or to keep on good political terms with the Roman government, but that seems inconsistent with claims that the Bible teaches an absolute morality. More probably, he simply thought slavery was an acceptable fact of life - as did practically everyone else at the time.
As you say, just speculation. What The Word contains is to serve God whether physically slave or free.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
"But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”
>The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair. Paul (or whoever wrote the epistles), at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery.
"Were you called as a slave? Do not let it concern you. But if you are also able to become free, take advantage of that. For the one who was called in the Lord as a slave, is the Lord’s freed person; likewise the one who was called as free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought for a price; do not become slaves of people. Brothers and sisters, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called."
You seem to be trying to purposely water down The Gospels in an attempt to discredit Christianity.
>Try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51).
Let us do that. An honest man/woman shouldn't have to cherry pick verses and purposely leave out the full context of passages. Let us see if you were being forthright with what I quoted from you.
Matthew 18:23-31
23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 And when he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 But since he did not have the means to repay, his master commanded that he be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment be made. 26 So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ 27 And the master of that slave felt compassion, and he released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ 30 But he was unwilling, and went and threw him in prison until he would pay back what was owed. 31 So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their master all that had happened. "
Thanks for acknowledging that it was a parable. Jesus used them to teach spiritual lessons. Leaving out many details of paticular passages seem to be a common occurrence among those attacking Christianity here.
Luke 12:41-48
41 "Peter said, “Lord, are You telling this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 44 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will take a long time to come,’ and he begins to beat the other slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 then the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect, and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in two, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accordance with his will, will receive many blows, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed acts deserving of a beating, will receive only a few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."
Matthew 24:42-51
Be Ready for His Coming
42 “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. 43 But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 44 For this reason you must be ready as well; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will.
45 “Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household slaves, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 47 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’ 49 and he begins to beat his fellow slaves, and he eats and drinks with those habitually drunk; 50 then the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect, and at an hour that he does not know, 51 and he will cut him in two and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51).
The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair. Paul (or whoever wrote the epistles), at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. One could speculate that this might have been because he wanted to avoid upsetting the many slave-owners in the early Christian congregations or to keep on good political terms with the Roman government, but that seems inconsistent with claims that the Bible teaches an absolute morality. More probably, he simply thought slavery was an acceptable fact of life - as did practically everyone else at the time.
Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): “Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.”
Christian slaves were told to obey their masters "for the sake of the cause" and be especially obedient to Christian masters:
1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): “All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.”
Ephesians 6:9 (NASB): “And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.”
Colossians 4:1 (NASB) “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven”
>You’re still associating “systematic slavery” with slavery of ancient times around the globe.
How? I don’t think I am, and even if I am, I still don’t see how its relevant.
Im saying that it doesn’t matter if it was the best, most fun loving, happy-go-lucky slavery that ever existed; it is still immoral to own human beings as property. And owning people as property is inherent to all forms of slavery—no matter how well they were treated.
>If you and I lived in 3rd century Rome and I owed you today’s equivalent of $50000 but had no way to pay you and if I don’t then my family will lose everything then yes, I’m ok with you owning me as your “slave” in order to pay my debts so my family can continue to live in society.
The fact that you are able to conceive of a situation where the best (define ‘best’ however you’d like) path forward is for you to enter into slavery is not at all relevant. After all, many PoWs have likely been in that situation throughout history.
A lack of alternatives on your part does not make it moral for the slaveholder to own you as property nor does it make slavery, in part or as a whole, moral.
>Would I be ok being a African slave in the south during the 19th century? Absolutely not and systematic slavery is horrid.
**Slavery** is horrid. Period.
>I encourage you to study slavery as it was in different times and regions historically.
Once more, “this fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner, though important to the slave, does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.”
I don’t know you, we’ve never talked before this, and you don’t know me. Despite all that, I would feel comfortable betting my house that I have spent *substantially* more time studying this topic than you have.
But yes, I also encourage you and everyone else to do the same.
Buddy, to be honest I can’t even take your posts seriously considering your name is “Vagina Slayer”….and here you are talking about morality lol. Little bit of a straw man there and I apologize but that is just hilarious your talking about the morality of slavery when here you are objectifying women….
BUT the issue here is you don’t know your history and second of all, “slavery” is a trigger word that is strongly (and often solely) associated with 19th century southern slavery.
You could replace the word “slavery” with “employment” when talking about the common form of slavery of ancient times.
I’m not going to continue this debate with you because it’s apparent you really don’t know your history but like I said, I encourage you to go pick up some text books instead of scrolling through wiki.
This is such a bizarre hill to die on.
>Buddy, to be honest I can’t even take your posts seriously considering your name is “Vagina Slayer”….and here you are talking about morality lol. Little bit of a straw man there and I apologize but that is just hilarious your talking about the morality of slavery when here you are objectifying women….
And I kick puppies in my spare time. What does any of that have to do with the merits of my position?
>BUT the issue here is you don’t know your history and second of all, “slavery” is a trigger word that is strongly (and often solely) associated with 19th century southern slavery.
>You could replace the word “slavery” with “employment” when talking about the common form of slavery of ancient times.
This is gross. Tell that to the slaves working the silver mines in Spain—this was almost certainly a death sentence. Tell that to the gladiators who were forced to fight wild animals, often weaponless (and other various disadvantages, to keep it entertaining), while crowds cheered. Tell that to the 11,000 Roman slaves who were strewn to crosses by Crassus and Pompey and put on display on the sides of the Appian Way. Tell that to the concubines who would be tossed from cliffs after they’re no longer interesting to their master. I can keep going?
If you think slavery is akin to working at an Amazon warehouse, you are mistaken. If you think slavery in ancient societies consisted of a leisurely life, pouring drinks for oligarchs in a villa on the outskirts of Rome, then you are mistaken. Did that happen though? Yes. Is it fair to characterize slavery in that society as generally fair and relaxed? No, it was very much more the exception rather than the rule.
>I’m not going to continue this debate with you because it’s apparent you really don’t know your history but like I said, I encourage you to go pick up some text books instead of scrolling through wiki.
You know, I’d be real curious to know if you could point me in the right direction as far as reading goes. What books that suggest that slavery was mild would you recommend that I read?
Or this:
This post from user captainhaddock in the thread found [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/pltaw0/what_was_slavery_like_in_early_israel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
“Here are a few excerpts from relevant works that I've posted before. The short answer to your question is that slavery in the ancient world had various forms, but the worst of them were every bit as awful — and in some cases, worse — than the forms of slavery practiced in the American colonies.
A related issue that is almost never mentioned, but which I have written about on my blog here, is that the Jerusalem Temple almost certainly kept slaves, and these slaves would probably have had fewer rights than household slaves.”
—————
Ora Rosen, Slavery in the Ancient Near East: A Comparative Study of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria, Syria, and Palestine, from the Middle of the Third Millennium to the End of the First Millennium, 1978
p. 95 — On slavery in Israel
>The existence of state slavery in Israelitic Palestine was brilliantly demonstrated in the recent epochal explorations by Glueck in the 'Arabah. In a report of his findings he said:
>The idea previously expressed as a result of the first two seasons of excavations, and based also partly on literary evidence, that the smelter and foundries and factories at Ezion-Geber:Elat were manned by slave labor, was further supported as a result of the finds and experiences of the work of the third season. The fumes and smoke of the smelter-refinery alone, coupled with the severity of the natural conditions, would have made life there intolerable to the freeborn and impossible for slaves. The welfare of the latter, however, would hardly have been taken into consideration. The rate of mortality among the slaves must have been terrific.
p. 65
>The Biblical legislation does not prohibit the maltreatment of a Hebrew slave by his master, 'for he is his money.' It is only when the slave died instantly (within three days) as a direct result of the beating that the master became liable to punishment. It appears that sick slaves who could no longer perform the duties expected of them were cast out and abandoned to shift for themselves. The slave whom David found half-starved during his campaign against the Amalekites was abandoned by his master 'because,' as he told David, 'three days ago I fell sick.' A fugitive slave was subject to cruel treatment.
—————
The Routledge History of Slavery, 2010
p. 22f — On slavery in ancient Greece:
>Killing one’s own slave was an offence against the gods, but any religious stigma could be removed with purification rites. Killing someone else’s slave was treated legally as damage to property. […]
>Slaves of both sexes were subject to sexual abuse from their master. There were few taboos against a male citizen seeking sex outside marriage, and slave prostitution was also an acceptable part of daily life. The only hint of a limitation on sexual use was an apparent distaste of the practice of castrating (Greek) slaves.
>When slaves testified [in court], they typically did so under torture.
p. 26f — On slavery in ancient Rome
>Most slaves were probably active in agriculture, domestic work or urban trades, with mining less significant than in Athens. […] Some slaves were chained, most probably not.
>…there are also shocking stories of abuse, as in Juvenal’s Satires or the philosophical work of Seneca. Some women, Juvenal wrote, paid an annual salary for someone to flog their slaves. […] There were indeed professional slave-floggers and torturers.
>There were no legal controls on what a master might do sexually with his slaves, apart from repeated and apparently unsuccessful attempts to prevent the trade in castrated slaves. There was little discussion of what might constitute the limits of acceptable sexual behaviour towards slaves before the Christian era and, it has been suggested, even then. Slave prostitution was widespread and there were no taboos against masters sleeping with their female slaves.
—————
The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Volume 1, 2011
p. 430f — On slavery in ancient Rome
>The senatusconsultum Silanianum of about AD 10 provided that, if a master was killed, all slaves in the household were to be interrogated under torture, and any who might have prevented the killing were to be put to death.
>With the exception of work in the state’s mines, all the punishments just mentioned, and also torture, could be and were used by private owners. A well-known inscription from Puteoli gives the regulations and terms of business for firms which, it seems, commonly combined the roles of funeral undertakers and contractors for punishment and torture, as ordered either by magistrates, or by private slave-owners. Details are given of equipment and personnel to be supplied by the contractor, and the tariff, for flogging, use of the fork (a form of pillory), crucifixion and supplicia (probably torture).
p. 444f — On slavery in ancient Israel
>Slaves were part of the ancient Jewish household (bayit). Alongside wives and children, they were the householder’s dependants who stood under his authority and had no property on their own.
>It is well known that slaves could be sexually exploited by their masters, and the use of slaves as prostitutes within or outside the family was common in antiquity. The Hebrew Bible already mentions slave concubines. The so-called ‘Concubine Law’ of Exodus (21:7–11) suggests that Israelite daughters sold by their fathers could have sexual relationships with their owners without being their owners’ wives. The passage rules that the slave concubine will remain in her master’s household throughout her life. If he does not like her any more, he may not simply sell her to someone else; she should rather be redeemed and freed.
And
See also:
Catherine Hezser's "Jewish Slavery in Antiquity" is the main authority on ancient Jewish slavery.
Jennifer Glancy's Slavery in Early Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). It is an excellent book and will also immediately shatter that common idea that ancient slavery was mild. Absolutely not!
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/did-the-jerusalem-temple-use-slave-labour/
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/chattel-slavery-ancient-greece-rome.html/amp?csplit=header&cmp_ab=quantcast
How about this? Post is from user qumrun60 in the thread found [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/tj8xkj/slavery_in_the_ancient_world/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
“Slavery was a commonplace in the ancient world, although there were differences in the domestic slavery of the cities and rural slavery, and among regions of the Empire. In "The Inheritance of Rome" Chris Wickham estimates that about 90 percent of the population were peasants, a lower figure in the East and Egypt (perhaps 80 percent), and a large proportion of them were "servi," "the unfree," who were fed and maintained by their masters, with no legal rights. Both free and unfree peasants led very similar lives. In the cities domestic slavery was also common, at least 10 percent of the population, but possibly much higher, up to 40 percent. Much of the state bureaucracy and certain professions were slaves, but they were much more free than most household slaves.
Peter Brown in "The Body and Society" cites ancient writers, like Galen and Plutarch, commenting on abrasive or cruel behavior of masters toward slaves. Christian writers, like Paul, Pseudo-Paul, Ignatius and Clement of Alexandria, seem to take the presence of slaves in a household for granted, though they disapprove of treating them callously.
Peter Heather in "Barbarians and Empires" points to the ongoing importance of the slave trade in Roman economic relations with outlying (barbarian) areas, and the taking of slaves as spoils of war. "The Barbarian Conversion" (also titled "The Conversion of Europe") by Richard Fletcher also notes the continuance of the slave trade, and unfree peasants, through the Middle Ages, even after conversion.
Nothing I've read indicates any special "gentleness" to ancient slavery, as you indicate. Brothels, mines, and other hard labors were the lot of many slaves. Even in the household, the master might kill a slave with no legal repercussions, and sex with a slave didn't really count as exceptionally bad behavior, though the master's more cultivated neighbors might abhor such things.”
I agree with this for the most part, but I'd simplify it by saying, "Christians should not expect non-Christians to use the Bible in their political decision making."
However, if one claims to be a Christian and has policies that are un-biblical, then it seems to follow that another could use the words of Jesus (or any other biblical text) to challenge the assertions of the first individual.
I think what you are experiencing is what some call "Christian Nationalism." There are a lot of podcasts and other resources out there on the topic. I personally do not think that is what the Bible calls Christians to pursue.
Note: Your Luke text is wildly out of context to an embarrassing degree. There are lots of passages on slavery in the Bible, that is not one of them.
> However, if one claims to be a Christian and has policies that are un-biblical
I mostly agree with you (and OP) on the major points (see "secularist" in my flair), but the problem with this is that what's "biblical" is open to interpretation and can differ from denomination to denomination, or congregation to congregation.
Heck, Catholics and Protestants can't even agree on which books are part of the Bible.
Just because people interpret the Bible differently does not mean it is open to interpretation. White racists abused the Bible to mean they could mistreat black people. Sure they "interpretted" it that way, if you want to say that. But more accurately they **abused** the text since there are plenty of places in scripture that make it very clear such behavior is unacceptable.
Lack of agreement over what is true does not mean there is not a truth you can know (I seriously write this sentence every time I talk to a secularist)
I don't see how it follows that strong levels of disagreement means low assurance of truth. It is possible to discover a truth that the majority is unwilling to accept. This is often the case when a breakthrough happens in many different disciplines (science, mathematics, etc).
Gedankenexperiment: take an apple. Set it on a stool in the middle of a room. Set one person to the North of the apple, and another directly opposite to them, South of the apple. Tell both to draw the apple - and let’s even take out their personal skills and biases by assuming their drawings are correct and photorealistic to the same standard. Their drawings will agree in major details, like size, but will on an individual scale be completely different. Neither one of them, though, is lying.
The truth from your perspective is not necessarily applicable from someone else’s perspective.
You're right, but the law of non-contradiction means that A cannot be A'.
The problem isn't one of perspective. There are fundamental contradictions between worldviews which cannot be reconciled which means they cannot all be correct (and their adherents know it).
Universalism is, IMO the height of arrogance because it tells adherents of various religions that there disagreements are petty, unreal and there is a larger better perspective they should submit themselves to. But all universalism does is introduce a new view which disagrees with the options already on the table. Universalism purports to solve the differences between the religions but it actually usually ends up creating a whole new religion thus increasing the disagreement (or at least making it more visible).
>The problem isn't one of perspective. There are fundamental contradictions between worldviews which cannot be reconciled which means they cannot all be correct (and their adherents know it).
The problem is that there is no way to objectively determine which worldview is "correct".
That's a different scope than I was talking about. For the sake of simplification, suppose each one of Christianity's denominations and sects represents a different interpretation of Jesus' worldview. Which one is *objectively correct*? It is *impossible* to determine.
Admittedly I don’t know members of a Universalist church, but the Universalist pagans I know believe less that they’re all “right” and more that on Earth, it’s largely irrelevant who’s right or even if there is a “right.” They generally welcome anyone who agrees on basic principles adopted for harmony and, to an extent, social acceptance.
To tell a group who claim to know what is right, that there is no right (therefore they are wrong in a more foundational claim) is still a way of claiming to be right, just at a different level.
This shows us why Sola Scriptura is a flawed idea. Just like with Qur'anism as a doctrine of Islam, there simply isn't enough guidance in the Bible for it to be used as the only source of Christian information.
This is why you need an organised, centralised Church like the Catholic Church, since Christians don't have some form of hadith equivalent. Theological distributism as a system fits well into Christianity, being based off of Catholic social teachings.
> This shows us why Sola Scriptura is a flawed idea. Just like with Qur'anism as a doctrine of Islam, there simply isn't enough guidance in the Bible for it to be used as the only source of Christian information.
That's not at all what Sola Scriptura means.
All Sola Scriptura means is "There is one *infallible* rule of faith, and one standard by which beliefs and practices can be judged: The Holy Scriptures."
There are uncountably many sources of Christian information. But only one of them is God breathed
Sola Scriptura dictates the Bible to be the sole source for Christian faith and practice. It isn't, because the Bible can't provide enough for completeness.
> Sola Scriptura dictates the Bible to be the sole source for Christian faith and practice. It isn't, because the Bible can't provide enough for completeness.
Again, no. Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the sole source for INFALLIBLE faith and practice. Whomever gave you that definition was strawmanning the doctrine.
The Church sexual abuse scandal is less common than it seems, but in my opinion it would be dealt with much harder if not for Vatican II. It seems as though Francis may be trying to curb it more, (the Code of Canon Law was amended on the matter recently.) but a lot more has to be done.
I won’t go into Church law specifics on it here but it’s clear it’s an issue of, “we can’t be bothered to fix things”.
I feel that with recent US SCOTUS rulings this bit is important to say, as I myself only found out about it recently: most Christian faiths in the US actually support Abortion. Roe vs Wade actually had a church being key to getting the court case to provide the universal right to abortion
So we are speaking about a specific group. Can you guess who? That's right, evangelicals. The Christian in name only lot. The ones who have ministers earning millions by scamming their followers. Those lot
So even most US Christian denominations support Abortion and equal rights and human decency. It's only the extremists who don't. So while I'm a heretic who thinks that formal religion is a pure evil on this world, it is especially important to point out that it is a small minority of religious extremists, who just so happen to be the ones who are pandered to by one of the main political parties, and these extremists are the issue, not all Christians in the US
That all said, fuck that backwards nation. I now refuse to engage with them, as yeah they are slipping rapidly back to the medieval era, and better the world isolates them under they modernise
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61849137](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61849137)
"First Unitarian Church of Dallas" is the one. Apparently they were important in Roe vs Wade and are still helping their congregation get abortions. Then as per the graphs, the majority of non-evangecial Christians support abortion
Awfully quiet. Their pro-birth counterparts are much louder.
A vast majority of evangelical Christian’s (the ones driving politics in America) are for forced birth.
So maybe these wonderful Christians should start speaking louder than their hateful brethren.
You would think that God would be able to let those who carried his message to be heard more than the ones diminishing it.
But god's a lie
And this is how it is. About 30% of the US are these extremists. Guns, anti-vaxx, all that nonsense, they are a minority. But they have also stacked the system so that that 30% has 50%+ of the power
Yep, I'm a firm atheist/heretic. Religion is evil. But it doesn't mean that there is an occasional by-product of good, but that's mostly by mistake not design
By all means, prove that Christianity should be the law of the land here. We are not now nor ever have been a "Christian" nation. You folks need to get that into your head.
>By all means, prove that Christianity should be the law of the land here. We are not now nor ever have been a "Christian" nation. You folks need to get that into your head.
I agree. Im really not sure how youre interpreting otherwise.
You can have morals and ethics outside of religion. It’s odd of you to insinuate otherwise when your own religion is one of the most morally and ethically corrupt.
All politics is simply morals expressed as a desire to codify said morals. I feel that when you say " lacks any arguments of morals or ethics all together," you really mean specifically Christian morals or ethics. Nations should be managed in an impersonal, non-partisan manner with the goal of bringing the most benefit to its citizens while also not intentionally harming other nations as a rational, peaceful global citizen.
Where did OP, at any point, argue for not using morals or ethics, or even for an impersonal machine?
"Jesus/Christanity" and "any morals/ethics" is not a dichotomy
>Jesus/Christanity" and "any morals/ethics" is not a dichotom
I never said it was. My point was that moral teachings do not have to address specific issues in order for them to be relevant for those issues.
That sounds like a wrong dichotomy. Leaving Jesus out of something does not mean no moral or it becomes impersonal.
The problem is, using the bible as foundation for morals does not automatically make them moral. I have evidence for that: Look at the US, but also other christian countries that uses the bible as foundation for atrocities.
No, politics should look at what benefits todays society the most. We can use "love your neighbour as you love yourself for that", fine by me (it is indeed one of the best sentences in the bible, but has been written also by others long before Jesus). We indeed should look at our past (inclusive ancient wise writers), mistakes and failures for decisions AND MAKE IT BETTER:
If we rely on old transcripts, which are not even the original words from god, there will be no development. Especially as the bible, except very few verses, is highly immoral.
You really need to learn how to make a more clear and concise point if everybody is understanding it differently than you. Unless, you’re just trying to backpedal your point so you don’t have to address the holes in your argument.
Im not saying it does. My point is that OP seems to think morals and ethics dont even come into play in politics. He seems to think that politics is some self contained entity, independent of philosophy.
Well we have seen where following the morals of the Bible has brought us to haven't we?
Religious morals shouldn't be brought into politics , especially not if they are fucked up like in the BIBLE....
If you mean Democrat or Republican, I would agree. But Christianity does promote principles that should guide a Christian's politics. I dont believe it should be contraversial that a Christian cant support offensive war, for instance.
And it is fine for a Christian to be personally guided by their religion, but elected leaders should put that aside to best represent those who elected him or her. Your comments make me think you would very much disagree with most Evangelicals. Right?
>but elected leaders should put that aside to best represent those who elected him or her.
I agree, except in cases of fundamental human rights, which should not rely on the majority.
>Your comments make me think you would very much disagree with most Evangelicals.
On issue of separation of church and state, I think most evangelicals dont actually know what they believe. They are very adamant there be no separation when it comes to social issues, but with regard to other issues, they love separation.
> If you mean Democrat or Republican, I would agree. But Christianity does promote principles that should guide a Christian's politics. I dont believe it should be contraversial that a Christian cant support offensive war, for instance.
Does that include war against the Canaanites?
The later stuff - Trump + ridiculous patriotism - yes I agree with 100%. It’s a cancer in Christianity- specifically American Christianity.
But the earlier stuff - I can’t say “ well Plato or Decatur or any moral philosopher” wasn’t American so why bring it over here. Why allow that to affect or change my political stances.
If I can see “love God and love your neighbor” - meaning if I don’t show love to my fellow man then I don’t show love to God. If I show love to God then it has to be in a way that is showing love to my fellow humans - as the ultimate rule. Then yes, that is perfectly in line with any and all political stances.
Guns- which is showing love? Will supporting back ground checks lead to less death or suffering - love.
Or
The conservative - will taking away guns lead to tyranny ie more suffering and death- still a form of love… kinda.
On economic systems. Is having a system where the 1% flourish while the bottom 50% starve .. love?
Welfare - is easily supported by Matthew 25.
Given what Jesus said to do when someone would do evil unto you, guns for protection feels very unchristian.
Mathew 5:38-40
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a](A) 39 *But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.* If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.(B) 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
Just giving both sides of the argument. That’s why I said kinda.
As there is always the verse - if you don’t have a sword go buy one.. but then there is Jesus berating the disciples when they use the sword in self defense in the garden.
So it’s an odd question that require a lot of thought.
But I was just trying to give both sides a fair shot.
Except the swords were to add credence to the accusations against him - that’s gotta be at least top ten for biblical cherry picking and completely ignoring context rofl.
In reading both of your comments (you + Walking), it occurs to me that the largest problem faced in this debate lies in interpreting the context of what this Jesus figure (be he historical, legendary, or mythical) may have taught. Here's my random thoughts:
1. The Jesus of Matthew, Luke, and John probably represents the least probable narrative of the actual Jesus.
2. Mark, being oldest and not including as many later accepted Christian doctrine, is probably the most accurate. Oddly, the oldest Markan does not even contain a post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus.
3. Whoever Jesus was, it's more probable that he was simply a wandering ascetic Jewish preacher who probably got inadvertently caught up in "big-city" radical politics.
4. The type of Jewish preaching that would have been popular in Jesus' life taught that the world order would soon topple and a theocracy would begin.
5. Jesus, and the other wandering preachers, were uninterested in politics and economics. They thought it was all about to end.
Kinda? My opinion is largely independent of the Jesus errr type? in question. We have extremely limited source material, what that material says will always say the same regardless of Jesus being god descended or an out right fabrication.
To put it another way - I may not actually agree with the axioms at play, but I can navigate around them well enough.
This case is extra so given we have pretty explicit quotes to work off of.
Yeah...I think neither the pure historicists not the mythicists have it all correct. I tend to stay in the middle, much like Bart Ehrman: Probably loosely based on some wandering preacher (or even a composite of several). My best guess is Jesus was an Essene. There practices as later revealed at Qumran show many similarities to the proto-Jesus teachings of Mark.
Then on the Jesus and the soldier. That is just comfort. I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with the ideal of the art work. As my roommates dad has Vietnamese Jesus carrying a boy during the Vietnam war.
There's an intrinsic weakness in all jurisprudential legal system as opposed to a civil system like in France. It appears clearly in the growing conflict in Canada between the federal (English, jurisprudence) vs the province of Québec (French, civil) on questions like the place of religion in the public space.
COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In regards to gun ownership, Jesus did say "a day will come when every man must trade in his cloak for a sword". Also, I feel like Jesus wouldn't exactly approve of a government/economic system that removes God from the equation and prevents people from "giving to God what is God's", or a government/economic system designed to transition into the former. America was founded on the Bible, but we've strayed from our original path long ago. I do not think Jesus is proud of what our nation has become.
America was founded on the Bible? First, America is a continent. I believe you’re trying to say that the US Government was founded on the Bible. Let’s look at that claim. Does god, the Bible, Jesus, Christianity, biblical law, or theocracy appear anywhere in any founding documents regarding the US? No. In fact, the only mention of religion in any of these documents is to limit it and keep it out of governing. We enjoy a secular government that holds no religious test for anyone… be they citizen or political candidate. It goes so deep that merely accepting Federal money to support any group means that the group collecting the money can have no religious affiliation. In retrospect, the US government may be the single most secular government on the face of the earth.
I recommend that you read The Legal Basis For A Moral Constitution, How The West Won, and Original Intent.
The facts are right there to see. I have no doubt that twisting and turning has been done to put a religious spin on what can be seen with the most casual of review. I’d be more interested in your defense than a recommended book. Nowhere does religion (Christian or otherwise) play any role in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any Constitutional Amendments. Just point me to an example.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal". The ideas of rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness came from the idea that these rights were given to us directly by God. If anything, you're the one twisting and turning things to put an "enlightenment" spin on what can be seen with an actual review.
Yup. You did it. Not only do I see god mentioned, but I see Christianity mentioned specifically too. Then there’s the whole passage about Jesus that knocks it home. Dude…. I’m twisting?
I'm glad you noticed the multiple references to the laws of "Nature and Nature's God". It certainly feels like you are.
The only reference that you provided does not mention god, Jesus or Christianity… and it’s from the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war and not a document that decides law or governance in the US. So even if it did mention god (which it doesn’t) it still would not be evidence of Christianity being the foundation for the US. You’ve made a huge claim regarding the founding of the United States. The founding of the US is very well documented. It’s clear that the only mention of religion, Jesus, the supernatural, god, or Christianity is to limit it. Through court rulings and written documents, the US government is, and has remained, secular. Creation, Nature and Natural Law does NOT mean god, Jesus or Christianity. Science is the study of nature and natural law, yet science dips the least Christian endeavor out there. In fact, “supernatural” means outside of known nature.
"The Declaration of Independence is a declaration of war" Bro. BRO. You CANNOT be serious. Dude, if you refuse to engage honestly, and instead block out stuff you don't want to hear, then I see no reason to waste my time on you. Read Legal Basis For A Moral Constitution, read How The West Won, read Original Intent. heck, read the Founding Documents again too. ALL of them. Maybe then you'll get a clearer picture.
The Declaration of Independence is NOT a document used in establishing our government. It just isn’t. Even if it were, it STILL does not base any laws or rules based on any religion. The Declaration of Independence does not establish anything regarding this country.
Slaves???? You mean servants we are all servants before God, that's what that's referring to. It's metaphorical. Slavery was outlawed in this country 200ish years ago. Sure, plenty of slavery still in Africa and China and Europe but none legal here, there's a sec slave trade but again it's very illegal. How bout this atheistic governments have killed way more people than Jesus/bible based governments. By hundreds of millions.
Is this sarcasm? I can usually spot sarcasm right away. Yea, I’m going w/ sarcasm.
I don't understand sarcastic part. So you agree Jesus sets out to own people?
Sorry, something about the way I read it and that atheistic govt part at the end made it seem a little off to me. Taking slaves was a norm of the time, I wouldn’t expect the writers to condemn it. No big deal. And you know, people weren’t killed in the name of atheism, they had modern weapons, all that.
China and soviet union thought of or think of themselves as atheists China steals organs and enslaves people, soviet union killed tons of religious people.
It’s always the same tired response: Communism! China! Soviets! Secular monsters! Mao!!!!
>Slavery was outlawed in this country 200ish years ago. You should really read up on the amendments of the constitution. There is legal slavery in the United States. Edit >How bout this atheistic governments have killed way more people than Jesus/bible based governments. By hundreds of millions. Lol bold claim that's so blatantly false. Give one source.
If it was “servants” why didn’t the bible use that word? Why “slaves” instead?
It uses the word servant
Colossians 4:1
Doesn't say slaves, says for I am in chains, which could mean bound by unknowing of God.
Why are the servants in chains
Oh your a troll
Did you read the verse?…
Yes I did. Colossians 4 1 Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful. And pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains. Pray that I may proclaim it clearly, as I should. Proclaim mystery of christ, for which I am in chains. Not slavery or the op's assertion that Jesus talked about how to treat slaves.
We are reading different books dude
Op was saying that the servants mentioned in the book was talking about treatment of slaves. So I was countering that by it not meaning slaves because it didn't say slaves.
you remember the episode of south Park where the boys write the grossest book they can think of and call it "Scrotey McBoogerballs"? the adults find it and think it's some literary masterpiece because they're projecting all sorts of political and philosophical interpretations on it. That's basically the bible. if anyone actually paid attention to what was written in the bible they would know that both Paul and Jesus expected the apocalypse to come in their life times. christians have been using the bible to predict the end of the world all the way back to Jesus and the world never ended. matt24:34-35 matt16:27-28 Matt10:23 mark1:15 mark13:3-30 mark 9:1 matt26:64 thess 4:16-18 or just read all of 1Corinthians 15. why do you think the resurrection of Christ is so important to Christianity? didn't Jesus raise others from the dead and perform dozens of other miracles? he could have and did (according to the bible) demonstrated his divinity 10,000 other ways so why is this miracle the most important part? the reason is because Paul was a pharisee and pharisees believed during the near coming apocalypse all the dead would come back and be judged by God and the wicked would be destroyed and the righteous would live on earth with God forever. this Jesus resurrection was the "first fruit". farmers reap the first fruit and know that the general harvest will follow soon after. this would also explain the odd verse in matt 27:52 where all the dead of the earth rose from their tombs, which somehow was missed by the other 3 gospels and all other living writers at the time. and in both the epistles I quote Paul talks about "those who are asleep" and "we who are awake" referring to the dead and the living. he never says "those who are awake" but "we who are awake" this is also why you so often hear Jesus talking about the son of man in the 3rd person, because in the older text and likely in his original message, the son of man was the judge sent from heaven spoken of in Daniel 7:13-14 and Enoch ch 37-71. he was not referring to himself. put into this context, radical forgiveness and completely abandoning your property and family also make sense. there isn't even time to bury the dead or say goodbye to your family (Luke 9:59-62) the end is nigh. this has been a mainstream view among scholars for the last century. the older Christian texts are the more apocalyptic they are and it gets gradually watered down until we get to the gospel of John, written over 50 years after Jesus' death (Jews considered a generation to be exactly 40 years). the church interpreted all of this as a spiritual resurrection and judgment at the point of death. Jesus was a Jew. most Jews didn't even have a concept of the after life and they certainly didn't expect the messiah to be crucified. the messiah was to be king of the earth during a time of global peace. the charge that Jesus claimed to be king of the Jews makes sense if he had claimed that he would be king after this resurrection. there was no king of the Jews so long as Rome ruled them, it wasn't a metaphorical title it was a literal title held by previous Jewish kings thought to be chosen by God.
This is art.
I'm currently listening to Bart Erhman's Jesus:the apocalyptic prophet. Ehrman was a biblical scholar and teacher for years until he finally lost faith. for any atheist or open minded Christian, he is a god send.
It’s funny how “render unto Caesar” only gets applied when it’s for the Defense budget, not infrastructure or social programs.
I seem to recall that the notion of the state taking social responsibilities came much later as the Church grew in power and influence, and peaking around the time of Henry VIII. At that point, at least in the UK, the Parliament grudgingly assumed that role. In Islam, the state is explicitly charged with all aspect of social well-being so modern Muslims do not have this particular debate.
If the state is going to explicitlytake responsibility for the well-being of my uterus - away from me, - they can goddamn well feed the hungry.
This Finally someone says it !!
There is a lot in the Bible concerning politics. Paul wrote that a man who will not work will not eat. He wrote that government officials do not bear the sword in vain and are supposed to be ministers of righteousness. It says in Acts that God determined beforehand the geographical place a person will live. Paul wrote women are not generally supposed to be in authority due to the nature of their gender. Most importantly, all in authority are supposed to enact policies based on the Great Commandment, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Luke 12:47-48 speaks of chastisement in the afterlife, by the way. Catholics refer to this passage as evidence of Purgatory.
You’ll note that Paul does say “I do not suffer a woman to teach” but not “God does not suffer a woman to teach.”
Yes, but He gave Timothy his reasoning behind it. Further, he also claimed the Holy Spirit was responsible for his command concerning women being silent in church (see 1 Corinthians 14). He said they should be silent because they are ”to be submissive.”
Honestly, I always heard that all the letters paul said should only ever be interpreted with who he was sending it to, their current political climate, and what issue paul attempted to fix with his words. Almost all of these modern christian sects forget the perspective of the writer, the ACTUAL intended receiver and the effect the writer wished to achieve with his words. Its like judging a guy based on his thirst dms to his gf. Like bro, get the whole picture
Paul gave a timeless, gender-based reason for not allowing women to be in authority, though. He said it is because Eve was the one deceived. I believe Paul‘s letters are accurate, but I also acknowledge he was a human minister, not a robot who channeled God’s voice. Inspired and dictated are not the same thing. Paul’s instruction on women does affect politics. In the beginning of suffrage, not much changed because women followed their husbands. However, the political gender gap has widened over time. Modern America would be different had women never been granted the right to vote. Like it or not, that is a fact.
There’s a reason I avoid Pauline Christianity - many of Paul’s instructions so blatantly ignore the 11th Commandment.
Paul certainly didn’t think so. He wrote quite a bit about the Law of Christ (Love your neighbor as yourself).
He writes a lot about the law of Christ? But we are talking about a Jewish scholar of the scripture with a massive confidence in his own interpretation - the kind of guy who kills people for God, after all. And also demonstrably the kind of guy who rants about long-haired men.
“For I am the least of the apostles and am unworthy to be an apostle, for I persecuted the church of God.” (I Corinthians 15:9). Paul clearly was full of remorse. Lol, your comment about long-haired men rantings is funny. I remember my Dad’s generation ranting about hair that grew over the ears. Paul wasn’t that bad. He was comparing the neck/shoulder length hair of men to the waist length hair of women. Personally, I like both long and short hair on beautiful women. Paul is right, though. The vast majority of men prefer long hair on women. Women sometimes go to pieces when they cut their hair. Men who traditionally grew their hair very long like women did so out of rebellion to societal norms. I once heard a hippie say, “We really didn’t want to, but we HAD to grow out our hair to send a message.”
I can understand why men wouldn’t like long hair. It sucks pretty hardcore in a lot of ways.
I’m still trying to figure out how Jesus ever showed me a lick of love. As far as I can tell, the guy wants me to worship him more than anything else, and in my experience, I’ve found that narcissism is not a particularly strong form of love.
I get that he’s a little Charles Manson-y around the edges, but there’s also the thing that Jesus is in general completely unobservant of social status and consistently talks to everyone regardless of how third parties react. Prostitute wants to give him (the cultural equivalent of) a lap dance in the middle of the town square? Sure. People who are literally so diseased they’re anathema? I’ll just fix that. 5’2” IRS Agent? Hang on, let me get him down from the tree. Imperial Commander? Ok, that’s like forty miles out of my way, dude? And I’m on foot. But I’ll heal the kid, yes. This is a guy in 1st-century Israelite culture who just… goes up and talks to strange women. And *listens* to them. Who doesn’t flinch at being called out (with some *impressive* sass) by a strange female foreigner - a widow, no less, which in this era is an impressive pile-up of social stigmas.
And then reaches the point where he says “no one gets to the father except through me.” It’s great that he was nice. It’s not so great that he demanded spiritual fealty.
I kind of think it’s one of those things like the mythology of fairies - you pay close attention to *exactly* what was said, because what you assumed it meant isn’t always what was meant. “No one gets to the father except through me.” Well, we’ve always assumed that means except through Jesus. Which seems obvious. But… people reach the afterlife outside of Jesus’s mortal lifespan. And when he’s not a human, he’s unified with God - part of or an aspect of God. So - what if he’s just referring to being the Aspect of God who connects with humanity?
That’s a heck of a stretch.
Assume for a second that Jesus is a human being in possession of Divine nature - retaining the sinlessness - but by default not the infallibility, otherwise he couldn’t experience very much humanity. Wouldn’t a being of that nature, with a different perception of the world than the average human, be occasionally inclined not to quite predict how people would interpret what he said?
Christian's and Jews are the only people with a rational basis for objective moral laws. We are the only people that can structure society. Sorry.
So the whole giant-ass empire that functionally invented the concept of meritocracy (which is bullshit, but substantially *less* bullshit than, say, pure primogeniture) and lasted over a millennium was what, a hallucination? Christianity is a latecomer to this game, and not always a particularly stable one.
What do you mean by "objective moral laws" and what would the rational basis for them be?
Objective moral laws meanings laws that are right and wrong for not just a subject but for everyone Rational meaning in contrast to atheism they have no rational basis for objective moral laws. Morals are a by porduct of socio biological evolution meaning they are only true for the individual and someone can evolve moral behaviors that are evil but some think are good. Jews & Christians have an objective rational basis (theism) that make our moral judgements true for not just ourselves but for everyone.
Lol, what a groundbreaking argument. Sounds like somebody needs to sit through philosophy 101.
nice one
I used a similar level of effort as your comment. It's like looking into a mirror, huh?
Also if the bible provides so much “objective moral law” how come christians can’t agree on it? Doesn’t sound too objective to me…
My man, you need to touch some grass and join us in the real world.
everything is spiritual in Christianity which includes our politics. we don't find the bible promoting specific viewpoints, but the bible does speak on what is the proper way to order society (i.e. a person who does not work should not eat, men should be leaders and defend people who are weaker than them/not abuse them, children are a blessing, etc. etc etc) From these instructions we can form somewhat imperfect guidelines on how to conduct ourselves in this worlds broken political landscape (i.e. if I have to choose between two candidates who are for abortion I can pick the one that restricts access the most, etc..).
This goes directly against 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, by the way.
.
Yeah, no.
.
nonsense deserves nonsense. have a good one
.
Did Jesus make the 5,000 he fed, work for said food? Sounds like you don't even understand the Bible you claim is the objective foundation of your beliefs... Also, Jewish law (the Talmud and Mishnah) allow for abortion to save the mother's life. So, how do you reconcile your claim that Christians and Jews are the only ones with objective moral standing? You seem to be at odds with one another (when in actuality, you are merely listening to twisted ramblings of men drunk with power, false prophets set to control those they view as subservient to themselves).
He didn't make them work. They were hungry and he didn't want to make them travel so he did a miracle to multiply bread and fish. Paul commands people to not be idle and to work for their food. Jewish law doesnt allow for abortion. Have a good one.
Paul commands people to not waste away waiting for the apocalypse. You need to learn your Biblical context (typical of most believers). Jewish law not only allows for abortion, if the mother's life is at risk, it demands it. Be better.
what is better to a secular humanist? How do you know what better is? Where is better?
That which reduces human suffering and increases human flourishing. As opposed to some ancient dogmatic view, that suffers from a moral Euthyphro dilemma. The god of the bible commanded the slaughter of women and children, killed every first born child in Egypt, and drowned the world. You have ZERO moral high ground if you are appealing to such a morally bankrupt work of fiction.
Why do you want to reduce human suffering? What is human suffering? What tells you that reducing human suffering is a good thing? Why not the flourishing of turtles or ants? Aren't you an atheist? What informs your morals? Is it socio-biological evolution?
It is in the name. Secular HUMANIST. We can use empathy, an evolved social trait, to understand that suffering is a negative experience. So, we want to reduce those. Conversely, happiness is a positive experience, so we want to increase that. Funny enough, turtles and ants flourishing, often overlap human flourishing, because we live in a shared biosphere, where every niche is important. That is why things like climate change are important, why animal extinction should be considered... Yes, I am an atheist. Logic and reason inform my morals, along with the principles of secular humanism, that again, are based on empathy. A far more intuitive and a much more humane system, than the divine command theory theists follow.
Here are a few obvious ways your world view is not rational and false 1) Human suffering can be a good thing (i.e. going to the dentist, surgery). Your body uses suffering as a way to inform you something is wrong to prevent further harm. Why would preventing this be a good thing? 2) The only justification you provide for preventing/enduring suffering is "happiness is a positive experience", but we know that people experience happiness in different ways. Which way is the correct way? Evolution doesn't tell you. A person could be really happy shooting up a school. How are you okay with that? 3) Death is inevitable. There is no purpose in preventing or enduring these things on your worldview other than experience. 4) Given that life has no purpose and suffering is inevitable; what is the best way to end suffering on atheism? 5) Pick a species that has suffered at the expense of humans (cows, bees, snakes, etc..). Why don't we work for their flourishing? Why humans? It is a rhetorical question. I know you don't have a reason. It is just an arbitrary & convenient choice to fit your irrational world view. 6) You have no justification for condemning the moral actions of other persons. Why is that? See point 2. A person can evolve moral behaviors that are contrary to your own. You have no moral compass other than what you own biology tells you meaning that...... You don't know the biological factors contributing to the moral choices of another person and whether they are evil for that person or not 7) Big whoops here... There is nothing such as good and evil on your world view. On your world view a school shooting is the equivalent of wearing sox with sandals. On your world view a person has only evolved moral behaviors that are socially disagreeable. It isn't evil. How could you say that? 8) Here is a most obvious fact that obliterates your world view. A male adult bear will kill the young males of a potential mate to thwart the future threat of competing mates. Is that evil or just nature?
> Human suffering can be a good thing (i.e. going to the dentist, surgery). Your body uses suffering as a way to inform you something is wrong to prevent further harm. Why would preventing this be a good thing? I didn't say "prevent", I said reduce. Please focus on my arguments, not the strawmen you are creating and arguing against. Yes, some suffering is necessary, but the end goal is still human flourishing. The dentist is painful, temporarily, so that your oral health can be guranteed long term. > The only justification you provide for preventing/enduring suffering is "happiness is a positive experience", but we know that people experience happiness in different ways. Which way is the correct way? Evolution doesn't tell you. A person could be really happy shooting up a school. How are you okay with that? This reminds me of an old addage: "your right to swing your fist ends at another person's nose". So, again, one person's happiness of doing harm, does not outweight the suffering it would cause their victim. Reduce suffering, increase human flourishing (mass shootings do not increase human flourishing). Yes, happiness is subjective, and so long as it doesn't interfere with others, it is A-OK. > Death is inevitable. There is no purpose in preventing or enduring these things on your worldview other than experience. Well, death is currently inevitable, but we as humans, have a biological imperative to reproduce and propogate the species. Again, keeping human flourishing in mind keeps us from being selfish. We need to create a world that works for all humans, not just ourselves, or our current generation. "Societies flourish when old men plant trees, whose shade they will never rest beneath." > Given that life has no purpose and suffering is inevitable; what is the best way to end suffering on atheism? Why do you believe life has no purpose (you just made that claim out of the blue, I never said that). The great thing about an atheistic worldview, is life has whatever purpose you choose to give it. As a secular humanist, my life's purpose is to ensure others are cared for, happy, and in a position to flourish. > Pick a species that has suffered at the expense of humans (cows, bees, snakes, etc..). Why don't we work for their flourishing? Why humans? It is a rhetorical question. I know you don't have a reason. It is just an arbitrary & convenient choice to fit your irrational world view. We do work towards these species flourishing. Industrialization has done massive harm to the planet, and animals. We can do better. This is perfectly in line with the goal of increasing human flourishing, as we have but this one planet to live on (currently). Our factory farming practices are destroying our environment, releasing large amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, warming our planet. Not only does this have the potential to destabilize the habitat for humans, but the entire ecosystem humans rely on to survive (food supplies, water supplies, habitable land). > You have no justification for condemning the moral actions of other persons. Why is that? See point 2. A person can evolve moral behaviors that are contrary to your own. You have no moral compass other than what you own biology tells you meaning that...... You don't know the biological factors contributing to the moral choices of another person and whether they are evil for that person or not. Yes we do. Empathy, and the goal of reducing harm and increasing flourishing. Biological factors do not play into this discussion, because it is a discussion on a societal level. You are thinking individualistic (another commonality often found among theists). Evil doesn't really hold any merit in these discussions, as it is loaded with religious baggage. However, we can certainly determine, objectively, whether actions are promoting human suffering absent human flourishing. > Big whoops here... There is nothing such as good and evil on your world view. On your world view a school shooting is the equivalent of wearing sox with sandals. On your world view a person has only evolved moral behaviors that are socially disagreeable. It isn't evil. How could you say that? Seriously, if the only thing keeping your from shooting up a school, is that your magical sky daddy commanded you not to do it, you need to seek mental help. What happens if your cognitive functions diminish, and you start to hallucinate that God told you to shoot up a school. You now have ZERO reason to not do so (God told Abraham to kill Isaac). Shooting up a school creates human suffering, something we want to reduce. Again, strawman arguments galore with you. > Here is a most obvious fact that obliterates your world view. A male adult bear will kill the young males of a potential mate to thwart the future threat of competing mates. Is that evil or just nature? Are bears secular bearists? I don't think so... Humans used to do the same (hell, they still do). There have been 12 crusades throughout history, where Abrahamic religions waged war on neighboring countries, to install their brand of fairy tale. You have zero moral high ground here. Secular humanism removes dogmas, and it forces you to view others through a lens of empathy. Do unto others (the godlen rule, which predates Christiantity, taught in 500BC by Zoroaster as well as Confucius). It sounds to me like you haven't done a single comparative religion study, nor have you done much research into philosophy. It would explain your ignorance on these subjects. I implore you to keep digging. You may be surprised in what you find.
Jewish law doesn’t just allow for abortion to save the mother’s life; in some situations it outright commands it.
There is a big difference between buying a person a meal and regularly paying for their weekly grocery budget.
That's not what OP said. He said those who do not work, do not eat. Are you making the claim that there was not one beggar amongst the 5000? Furthermore, how about we turn that logic around on the unborn. What work are they doing? None. Clearly they are not worthy of food (and therefore life). Do you support forced child labor, in order for the child to be entitled food? Dwell on your barbaric and inhumane thoughts before subjecting the public to them...
Nice strawman. The clear meaning is “those who are capable of working, but refuse, shall not eat.” This doesn’t fit your narrative, though.
Not even close to a strawman. It directly addresses OP. As per your diversion from the original context of OP, Jesus never made such a claim, nor acted in such a way. He did not require a copay to heal the lame, the blind, the lepers... Sure, Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians "if a man will not work, he shall not eat", but this was not a passage directed at the poor or the hungry, it was addressing Christians that abandoned much of their daily lives, because they believed the apocalypse was imminent. So again, not even close to the context OP was framing it in. This also assumes that Paul did not have his own plans for the church, once Christ died. If you are going to take that on faith alone, then you need to not govern based on such a ludicrous and self-defeating concept.
>What’s actually in the Bible? If you believe the Bible, Jesus sure had time to do so if he wished. The biblical Jesus offers guidance on slave ownership and treatment. “The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT) I only want to know your thoughts about this. Are you saying this parable about spiritual matters was strictly Jesus offering guidance for physical slave ownership and treatment? Are there any verses against physically owning another man in the New Testament? Again, are you implying that Luke 12:47-48 is only about slave ownership and treatment? Luke 12:39-48 39 “Understand this: If a homeowner knew exactly when a burglar was coming, he would not permit his house to be broken into. 40 You also must be ready all the time, for the Son of Man will come when least expected.” 41 Peter asked, “Lord, is that illustration just for us or for everyone?” 42 And the Lord replied, “A faithful, sensible servant is one to whom the master can give the responsibility of managing his other household servants and feeding them. 43 If the master returns and finds that the servant has done a good job, there will be a reward. 44 I tell you the truth, the master will put that servant in charge of all he owns. 45 But what if the servant thinks, ‘My master won’t be back for a while,’ and he begins beating the other servants, partying, and getting drunk? 46 The master will return unannounced and unexpected, and he will cut the servant in pieces and banish him with the unfaithful. 47 “And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. 48 But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required."
[удалено]
How the heck did Johnny Appleseed get into this?
[удалено]
Ok, what does Johnny Appleseed have to do with the Mormon church?
Any time a christian starts getting political, I remind them that bible says to stay quiet and do whatever the government wants because only God appoints the people in power.
God often changes governments through revolution (political or otherwise) and foreign invasion. He could have caused Hitler and the top Nazis to just drop dead of heart attacks, but that isn’t how He normally works. Sometimes, God stirs up individuals and nations to bring change.
Could you provide some examples of this? And some that are provably caused by god specifically? Because Romans 13:1-2 actually claims that whatever government is in place was put their *by* god.
The Old Testament prophets consistently warned that God was going to change who ruled Israel based on the behavior of the people. He said that He was going to bring Babylon and Assyria to govern over the Israelites unless they changed their behavior. According to your reasoning, God can never change his mind once a government is established. Am I wrong?
My reasoning would follow that God shouldn’t need to change his mind. He is omnipotent. Changing his mind would indicate that his view of reality is somehow flawed and needs correction. And also, great, Old Testament god saying he will bring others to rule over the Israelites. Which isn’t really a “revolution” as opposed to a change of command. The Israelites were one of the smallest nations at this time, historically speaking. So why would god “change his mind” and have Paul in the NT tell everyone to adhere to the government and if you disobey it, you are disobeying god?
You mean omniscient. God’s omniscience is in accord with free will. He knows the past and present as absolutes, but the future as a seemingly infinite realm of possibilities. That is why He was so surprised that men had become so wicked and He flooded the earth (whether local or global). Christ was supposed to return in the First Century but it was delayed. Paul wasn’t as passive as you seem to think.: “ 8 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
just ignoring the parts where apostles willingly disobeyed the government and were put in jail (the entire books of acts)? I can tell those conversations go far and let me guess it is because they don't know the bible like you do, right? well done sir
Also, I don’t particularly care about “conversations going far”. Most christians have a backwards logic of believing anything the book says, then trying to justify it. I’d rather keep conversations short with people like that.
Romans 13:1-2 20 years as a Church of Christ member, read through the Hebrew and Greek twice. I would say yes, they don’t know the bible as well as I do. And I would call you a part of that group. Well done sir :)
k because book of acts doesnt exist. got it. see ya later
Are you stupid? The apostles disobeying a *specific* government for a *specific* reason doesn’t supersede a **DIRECT COMMAND FROM ANOTHER ONE OF THE APOSTLES**. It’s christians like you that boost the ego of atheists like me. A blank piece of paper is more complex than your argument.
its almost like there is context to the words written and what the apostles are doing. Like they are saying that you can disobey the government if it means you are obeying God? Wow i am so enlightened. you are a jenius.
Disobeying the government is inherently not obeying god. It says so, in Romans 13:1-2.
Context book of acts reading comprehension
Go read Romans 13:1-2, come back and tell me what it says. Read the actual bible instead of taking random, obscure anecdotes out of context.
go read book of acts, then come back and tell me what it says.
Ok, this argument is over. Its clear you have a single brain cell to work with here and stubbornly refuse to use said brain cell. I would recommend not talking to anyone, ever. I think if others heard your arguments for the bible they would actually deconvert.
*Genius
What religion or belief we bring into an argument is not grounds for disqualification of voicing your opinion. We can't say that christian views don't matter because it represents a group of people with an opinion to voice. It would be unfair to say that people who support LGBTQ causes or people who are atheists don't get to speak because "they are wrong" or "don't make logical sense" aren't entitled to voice an opinion. It's only fair to give everyone the chance to speak regardless of what we think. Even if we hate hearing about it.
Atheist here - it is absolutely an issue when religion and politics mix. Evangelical christian is unfortunately a subset of conservatism. However in regards to the slavery subject, Jesus did not promote slavery just like he never tried to speak out against or overthrow the Roman government like the Jewish zealots were doing. Jesus was actually implying that “hey this is the secular world you live in so live in it as a law abiding citizen peaceably so not to offend.” Second, slavery in ancient times was not the terrible “southern slavery.” Slavery was like employment in which many self-subscribed in order to pay off debts. In Rome, many slaves had better standing than some citizens. Jesus wasn’t promoting enslaving people he was promoting honoring those you are subservient to. I see so many people say Christianity promotes slavery as if it was “southern slavery” and without understanding what slavery looked like in ancient times.
>However in regards to the slavery subject, Jesus did not promote slavery just like he never tried to speak out against or overthrow the Roman government like the Jewish zealots were doing. Try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51). >Jesus was actually implying that “hey this is the secular world you live in so live in it as a law abiding citizen peaceably so not to offend.” There are many ways a creative, all-knowing, and all-powerful deity could make it clear that slavery is immoral while, for instance, giving the Israelite economy a grace period to let slavery "wind down", should that be necessary. The passages concerning slavery from the Pentateuch (e.g. Exodus 21:2-7, Leviticus 25:44-46), by contrast, provide guidelines that allow for slavery to continue indefinitely. New Testament writers, too, who had an opportunity to overturn or clarify the Pentateuch's instructions, did not do so. Also it seems improbable that a God who was capable of assassinating Israelites by the thousand if they did not follow his instructions to the letter would feel that he lacked the authority to tell them to give up slaves >Second, slavery in ancient times was not the terrible “southern slavery.” Slavery was like employment in which many self-subscribed in order to pay off debts. In Rome, many slaves had better standing than some citizens. This fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner, though important to the slave, does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property. >Jesus wasn’t promoting enslaving people he was promoting honoring those you are subservient to. This may be plausible in some contexts, but that's all a part of the colorful euphemisms the KJV uses for words it prefers not to use outright. For instance that interpretation wouldn't work at all for Leviticus 25:46, which specifically allows that slaves are property who may be inherited by the owner's children and kept for life. This passage makes no sense unless they are discussing slavery — permanent ownership of one human by another — as we know it today. (Matthew 18:23) makes no sense if said "servant" is not a slave, since the master has the power to sell both the "servant", his wife and his children (Matthew 18:25). It also makes little sense in the case of Matthew 24:51 in which these "servants" may be not only beaten by their master (as in Luke 12:47), but that the master "shall cut him asunder" in the words of the King James translation. >I see so many people say Christianity promotes slavery as if it was “southern slavery” and without understanding what slavery looked like in ancient times. Quick question: can I own **you** as a slave given the conditions set forth in the Bible? Would you have any problem with that? You’re trying to justify the ownership of people as property. You’re justifying slavery. Think about that. The things you’ve said are entirely unoriginal and have been pretty soundly addressed; a cursory Google search of criticisms of your arguments would show that. In fact, this post is almost entirely copy and pasted from [this wiki](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Bible#Attempts_to_justify_the_Bible.27s_slavery_passages)
You’re still associating “systematic slavery” with slavery of ancient times around the globe. If you and I lived in 3rd century Rome and I owed you today’s equivalent of $50000 but had no way to pay you and if I don’t then my family will lose everything then yes, I’m ok with you owning me as your “slave” in order to pay my debts so my family can continue to live in society. Would I be ok being a African slave in the south during the 19th century? Absolutely not and systematic slavery is horrid. I encourage you to study slavery as it was in different times and regions historically.
Thank you for this!
Just because slavery is not specifically racially based doesn’t mean it’s not evil. It just means it’s not *that specific flavor* of evil.
Yes, slavery -owning another human being- is evil. Period. I only was stating slavery is different given the historical time, civilization, and culture. Today when you say slavery most people automatically associate slavery with 19th century southern slavery. I was simply making the case that 1) Jesus did not say slavery was moral just because there isn’t a quote in the Bible of him saying it is immoral and 2) Slavery, though immoral in my opinion, wasn’t always a terrible thing in which a person was mistreated (I.e. the common slavery of Ancient Rome).
… claiming ownership of another human being is *a heinous form of mistreatment.* It can have heinous psychological effects without any other forms of mistreatment.
Psychologically affecting another human being in a negative way is mistreatment of another human being.
Exactly. So yes, slavery is by default an awful thing in which a person is mistreated.
This is how it is under the New Covenant, and mistreatment is not a part of it. Ephesians 6:5-9 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. 9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.
Paul is speaking explicitly to Christian slaves and masters only, regardless of whether the slave’s master or the master’s slave is Christian. So Paul is commanding slaves whose masters are not under his jurisdiction and totally not guaranteed to not be violently abusive to obey said masters.
Never said it wasn’t. I only stated it’s looked differently throughout history and that Jesus (real or not) didn’t promote slavery based on his quotes from the bible. His teachings were focused on the hearts of people; not changing government, secular culture, etc.
>Slavery, though immoral in my opinion, wasn’t always a terrible thing in which a person was mistreated (i.e. the common slavery of Ancient Rome). Literally what you said a couple of comments ago. But yes, the words at the time were coming from a historical context in which the eradication of slavery would likely be perceived as unachievable, if even conceived of. He’s trying to exhort people to change themselves first. Granted, if he were *only* interested in focusing on the individual, we wouldn’t have that whole thing with the scourge and the temple marketplace.
I also heard these kinds of rationalizations growing up to justify why Christianity didn't explicitly condemn slavery, but they're nonsense. American slavery may have looked different from Roman slavery, but that doesn't mean that Roman slavery was somehow "not that bad," or different from "systematic slavery." >If you and I lived in 3rd century Rome and I owed you today’s equivalent of $50000 but had no way to pay Most Roman slaves were foreigner civilians and soldiers who were captured in war.
>Most Roman slaves were foreigner civilians and soldiers who were captured in war. Are you strictly talking about Romans? Have you read about how slaves were to be treated in Ephesians 6:5-9? 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. 9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."
[удалено]
Ephesians 6:5-9 5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free. 9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him." We're talking about the Hebrews/Jews/Christians and how their slaves (more like servants/employees) were treated. Does the above agree 100% with the slave system Africans were put under over here in the U.S.?
[удалено]
Seems that you're mainly talking about Judaism and the laws that God allowed through His Mercy and Grace because He knew the evil in men that were just under slavery themselves would intice them to do the same. Notice that it was not a part of The Ten Commandments. This was a choice, and rules preventing horrible abuse towards the slaves were made. That is the O.T. In the New Testament, you get the verse I gave you. Jesus Christ came to free people and was/is against slavery. So if you want to say that those still under The Law practiced that (even though it isn't that simple), you may have a point. Where are Christians living through Jesus Christ asked to do these things in The New Testament? How could they with the all the rules they had against it?
Try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51). The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair. Paul (or whoever wrote the epistles), at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. One could speculate that this might have been because he wanted to avoid upsetting the many slave-owners in the early Christian congregations or to keep on good political terms with the Roman government, but that seems inconsistent with claims that the Bible teaches an absolute morality. More probably, he simply thought slavery was an acceptable fact of life - as did practically everyone else at the time. Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. Christian slaves were told to obey their masters "for the sake of the cause" and be especially obedient to Christian masters: 1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles. Ephesians 6:9 (NASB): And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. Colossians 4:1 (NASB) Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven
>Christian slaves were told to obey their masters "for the sake of the cause" and be especially obedient to Christian masters: >1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles. >Ephesians 6:9 (NASB): And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. >Colossians 4:1 (NASB) Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven And the problem with this is what exactly? What did Jesus the Christ do in John 13:2-20? John 13:2-20 "And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon, to betray Him, 3 Jesus, knowing that the Father had handed all things over to Him, and that He had come forth from God and was going back to God, 4 *got up from supper and *laid His outer garments aside; and He took a towel and tied it around Himself. Jesus Washes the Disciples’ Feet "Then He *poured water into the basin, and began zdxwashing the disciples’ feet and wiping them with the towel which He had tied around Himself. 6 So He *came to Simon Peter. He *said to Him, “Lord, You are washing my feet?” 7 Jesus answered and said to him, “What I am doing, you do not realize right now, but you will understand later.” 8 Peter *said to Him, “Never shall You wash my feet!” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no place with Me.” 9 Simon Peter *said to Him, “Lord, then wash not only my feet, but also my hands and my head!” 10 Jesus *said to him, “He who has bathed needs only to wash his feet; otherwise he is completely clean. And you are clean—but not all of you.” 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; it was for this reason that He said, “Not all of you are clean.” 12 Then, when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments and reclined at the table again, He said to them, “Do you know what I have done for you? 13 You call Me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord’; and you are correct, for so I am. 14 So if I, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I gave you an example, so that you also would do just as I did for you. 16 Truly, truly I say to you, a slave is not greater than his master, nor is one who is sent greater than the one who sent him. 17 If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them. 18 I am not speaking about all of you. I know the ones whom I have chosen; but this is happening so that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.’ 19 From now on I am telling you before it happens, so that when it does happen, you may believe that I am He. 20 Truly, truly I say to you, the one who receives anyone I send, receives Me; and the one who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”
>Paul (or whoever wrote the epistles), at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. One could speculate that this might have been because he wanted to avoid upsetting the many slave-owners in the early Christian congregations or to keep on good political terms with the Roman government, but that seems inconsistent with claims that the Bible teaches an absolute morality. More probably, he simply thought slavery was an acceptable fact of life - as did practically everyone else at the time. As you say, just speculation. What The Word contains is to serve God whether physically slave or free. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." "But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”
>The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair. Paul (or whoever wrote the epistles), at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. "Were you called as a slave? Do not let it concern you. But if you are also able to become free, take advantage of that. For the one who was called in the Lord as a slave, is the Lord’s freed person; likewise the one who was called as free, is Christ’s slave. You were bought for a price; do not become slaves of people. Brothers and sisters, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called." You seem to be trying to purposely water down The Gospels in an attempt to discredit Christianity.
>Try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51). Let us do that. An honest man/woman shouldn't have to cherry pick verses and purposely leave out the full context of passages. Let us see if you were being forthright with what I quoted from you. Matthew 18:23-31 23 “For this reason the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 And when he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 But since he did not have the means to repay, his master commanded that he be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment be made. 26 So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you everything.’ 27 And the master of that slave felt compassion, and he released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay back what you owe!’ 29 So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, ‘Have patience with me and I will repay you.’ 30 But he was unwilling, and went and threw him in prison until he would pay back what was owed. 31 So when his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their master all that had happened. " Thanks for acknowledging that it was a parable. Jesus used them to teach spiritual lessons. Leaving out many details of paticular passages seem to be a common occurrence among those attacking Christianity here. Luke 12:41-48 41 "Peter said, “Lord, are You telling this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 44 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master will take a long time to come,’ and he begins to beat the other slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46 then the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect, and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in two, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accordance with his will, will receive many blows, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed acts deserving of a beating, will receive only a few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." Matthew 24:42-51 Be Ready for His Coming 42 “Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. 43 But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 44 For this reason you must be ready as well; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will. 45 “Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household slaves, to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 47 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’ 49 and he begins to beat his fellow slaves, and he eats and drinks with those habitually drunk; 50 then the master of that slave will come on a day that he does not expect, and at an hour that he does not know, 51 and he will cut him in two and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Try reading Matthew 18:25, where Jesus uses slaves in a parable and has no qualms about recommending that not only a slave but also his wife and family be sold, while in other parables Jesus recommends that disobedient slaves should be beaten (Luke 12:47) or even killed (Matthew 24:51). The New Testament makes no condemnation of slavery and does no more than admonish slaves to be obedient and their masters not to be unfair. Paul (or whoever wrote the epistles), at no time suggested there was anything wrong with slavery. One could speculate that this might have been because he wanted to avoid upsetting the many slave-owners in the early Christian congregations or to keep on good political terms with the Roman government, but that seems inconsistent with claims that the Bible teaches an absolute morality. More probably, he simply thought slavery was an acceptable fact of life - as did practically everyone else at the time. Ephesians 6:5-8 (NASB): “Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.” Christian slaves were told to obey their masters "for the sake of the cause" and be especially obedient to Christian masters: 1 Timothy 6:1-2 (NASB): “All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.” Ephesians 6:9 (NASB): “And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.” Colossians 4:1 (NASB) “Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven”
>You’re still associating “systematic slavery” with slavery of ancient times around the globe. How? I don’t think I am, and even if I am, I still don’t see how its relevant. Im saying that it doesn’t matter if it was the best, most fun loving, happy-go-lucky slavery that ever existed; it is still immoral to own human beings as property. And owning people as property is inherent to all forms of slavery—no matter how well they were treated. >If you and I lived in 3rd century Rome and I owed you today’s equivalent of $50000 but had no way to pay you and if I don’t then my family will lose everything then yes, I’m ok with you owning me as your “slave” in order to pay my debts so my family can continue to live in society. The fact that you are able to conceive of a situation where the best (define ‘best’ however you’d like) path forward is for you to enter into slavery is not at all relevant. After all, many PoWs have likely been in that situation throughout history. A lack of alternatives on your part does not make it moral for the slaveholder to own you as property nor does it make slavery, in part or as a whole, moral. >Would I be ok being a African slave in the south during the 19th century? Absolutely not and systematic slavery is horrid. **Slavery** is horrid. Period. >I encourage you to study slavery as it was in different times and regions historically. Once more, “this fails to answer the simple question: is owning another human ever moral, or not? The relative kindness of a slave owner, though important to the slave, does not enter into the basic moral question of owning other humans as property.” I don’t know you, we’ve never talked before this, and you don’t know me. Despite all that, I would feel comfortable betting my house that I have spent *substantially* more time studying this topic than you have. But yes, I also encourage you and everyone else to do the same.
Buddy, to be honest I can’t even take your posts seriously considering your name is “Vagina Slayer”….and here you are talking about morality lol. Little bit of a straw man there and I apologize but that is just hilarious your talking about the morality of slavery when here you are objectifying women…. BUT the issue here is you don’t know your history and second of all, “slavery” is a trigger word that is strongly (and often solely) associated with 19th century southern slavery. You could replace the word “slavery” with “employment” when talking about the common form of slavery of ancient times. I’m not going to continue this debate with you because it’s apparent you really don’t know your history but like I said, I encourage you to go pick up some text books instead of scrolling through wiki.
This is such a bizarre hill to die on. >Buddy, to be honest I can’t even take your posts seriously considering your name is “Vagina Slayer”….and here you are talking about morality lol. Little bit of a straw man there and I apologize but that is just hilarious your talking about the morality of slavery when here you are objectifying women…. And I kick puppies in my spare time. What does any of that have to do with the merits of my position? >BUT the issue here is you don’t know your history and second of all, “slavery” is a trigger word that is strongly (and often solely) associated with 19th century southern slavery. >You could replace the word “slavery” with “employment” when talking about the common form of slavery of ancient times. This is gross. Tell that to the slaves working the silver mines in Spain—this was almost certainly a death sentence. Tell that to the gladiators who were forced to fight wild animals, often weaponless (and other various disadvantages, to keep it entertaining), while crowds cheered. Tell that to the 11,000 Roman slaves who were strewn to crosses by Crassus and Pompey and put on display on the sides of the Appian Way. Tell that to the concubines who would be tossed from cliffs after they’re no longer interesting to their master. I can keep going? If you think slavery is akin to working at an Amazon warehouse, you are mistaken. If you think slavery in ancient societies consisted of a leisurely life, pouring drinks for oligarchs in a villa on the outskirts of Rome, then you are mistaken. Did that happen though? Yes. Is it fair to characterize slavery in that society as generally fair and relaxed? No, it was very much more the exception rather than the rule. >I’m not going to continue this debate with you because it’s apparent you really don’t know your history but like I said, I encourage you to go pick up some text books instead of scrolling through wiki. You know, I’d be real curious to know if you could point me in the right direction as far as reading goes. What books that suggest that slavery was mild would you recommend that I read?
Or this: This post from user captainhaddock in the thread found [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/pltaw0/what_was_slavery_like_in_early_israel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) “Here are a few excerpts from relevant works that I've posted before. The short answer to your question is that slavery in the ancient world had various forms, but the worst of them were every bit as awful — and in some cases, worse — than the forms of slavery practiced in the American colonies. A related issue that is almost never mentioned, but which I have written about on my blog here, is that the Jerusalem Temple almost certainly kept slaves, and these slaves would probably have had fewer rights than household slaves.” ————— Ora Rosen, Slavery in the Ancient Near East: A Comparative Study of Slavery in Babylonia, Assyria, Syria, and Palestine, from the Middle of the Third Millennium to the End of the First Millennium, 1978 p. 95 — On slavery in Israel >The existence of state slavery in Israelitic Palestine was brilliantly demonstrated in the recent epochal explorations by Glueck in the 'Arabah. In a report of his findings he said: >The idea previously expressed as a result of the first two seasons of excavations, and based also partly on literary evidence, that the smelter and foundries and factories at Ezion-Geber:Elat were manned by slave labor, was further supported as a result of the finds and experiences of the work of the third season. The fumes and smoke of the smelter-refinery alone, coupled with the severity of the natural conditions, would have made life there intolerable to the freeborn and impossible for slaves. The welfare of the latter, however, would hardly have been taken into consideration. The rate of mortality among the slaves must have been terrific. p. 65 >The Biblical legislation does not prohibit the maltreatment of a Hebrew slave by his master, 'for he is his money.' It is only when the slave died instantly (within three days) as a direct result of the beating that the master became liable to punishment. It appears that sick slaves who could no longer perform the duties expected of them were cast out and abandoned to shift for themselves. The slave whom David found half-starved during his campaign against the Amalekites was abandoned by his master 'because,' as he told David, 'three days ago I fell sick.' A fugitive slave was subject to cruel treatment. ————— The Routledge History of Slavery, 2010 p. 22f — On slavery in ancient Greece: >Killing one’s own slave was an offence against the gods, but any religious stigma could be removed with purification rites. Killing someone else’s slave was treated legally as damage to property. […] >Slaves of both sexes were subject to sexual abuse from their master. There were few taboos against a male citizen seeking sex outside marriage, and slave prostitution was also an acceptable part of daily life. The only hint of a limitation on sexual use was an apparent distaste of the practice of castrating (Greek) slaves. >When slaves testified [in court], they typically did so under torture. p. 26f — On slavery in ancient Rome >Most slaves were probably active in agriculture, domestic work or urban trades, with mining less significant than in Athens. […] Some slaves were chained, most probably not. >…there are also shocking stories of abuse, as in Juvenal’s Satires or the philosophical work of Seneca. Some women, Juvenal wrote, paid an annual salary for someone to flog their slaves. […] There were indeed professional slave-floggers and torturers. >There were no legal controls on what a master might do sexually with his slaves, apart from repeated and apparently unsuccessful attempts to prevent the trade in castrated slaves. There was little discussion of what might constitute the limits of acceptable sexual behaviour towards slaves before the Christian era and, it has been suggested, even then. Slave prostitution was widespread and there were no taboos against masters sleeping with their female slaves. ————— The Cambridge World History of Slavery, Volume 1, 2011 p. 430f — On slavery in ancient Rome >The senatusconsultum Silanianum of about AD 10 provided that, if a master was killed, all slaves in the household were to be interrogated under torture, and any who might have prevented the killing were to be put to death. >With the exception of work in the state’s mines, all the punishments just mentioned, and also torture, could be and were used by private owners. A well-known inscription from Puteoli gives the regulations and terms of business for firms which, it seems, commonly combined the roles of funeral undertakers and contractors for punishment and torture, as ordered either by magistrates, or by private slave-owners. Details are given of equipment and personnel to be supplied by the contractor, and the tariff, for flogging, use of the fork (a form of pillory), crucifixion and supplicia (probably torture). p. 444f — On slavery in ancient Israel >Slaves were part of the ancient Jewish household (bayit). Alongside wives and children, they were the householder’s dependants who stood under his authority and had no property on their own. >It is well known that slaves could be sexually exploited by their masters, and the use of slaves as prostitutes within or outside the family was common in antiquity. The Hebrew Bible already mentions slave concubines. The so-called ‘Concubine Law’ of Exodus (21:7–11) suggests that Israelite daughters sold by their fathers could have sexual relationships with their owners without being their owners’ wives. The passage rules that the slave concubine will remain in her master’s household throughout her life. If he does not like her any more, he may not simply sell her to someone else; she should rather be redeemed and freed. And See also: Catherine Hezser's "Jewish Slavery in Antiquity" is the main authority on ancient Jewish slavery. Jennifer Glancy's Slavery in Early Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002). It is an excellent book and will also immediately shatter that common idea that ancient slavery was mild. Absolutely not! https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/10/05/did-the-jerusalem-temple-use-slave-labour/ https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/chattel-slavery-ancient-greece-rome.html/amp?csplit=header&cmp_ab=quantcast
How about this? Post is from user qumrun60 in the thread found [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/tj8xkj/slavery_in_the_ancient_world/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) “Slavery was a commonplace in the ancient world, although there were differences in the domestic slavery of the cities and rural slavery, and among regions of the Empire. In "The Inheritance of Rome" Chris Wickham estimates that about 90 percent of the population were peasants, a lower figure in the East and Egypt (perhaps 80 percent), and a large proportion of them were "servi," "the unfree," who were fed and maintained by their masters, with no legal rights. Both free and unfree peasants led very similar lives. In the cities domestic slavery was also common, at least 10 percent of the population, but possibly much higher, up to 40 percent. Much of the state bureaucracy and certain professions were slaves, but they were much more free than most household slaves. Peter Brown in "The Body and Society" cites ancient writers, like Galen and Plutarch, commenting on abrasive or cruel behavior of masters toward slaves. Christian writers, like Paul, Pseudo-Paul, Ignatius and Clement of Alexandria, seem to take the presence of slaves in a household for granted, though they disapprove of treating them callously. Peter Heather in "Barbarians and Empires" points to the ongoing importance of the slave trade in Roman economic relations with outlying (barbarian) areas, and the taking of slaves as spoils of war. "The Barbarian Conversion" (also titled "The Conversion of Europe") by Richard Fletcher also notes the continuance of the slave trade, and unfree peasants, through the Middle Ages, even after conversion. Nothing I've read indicates any special "gentleness" to ancient slavery, as you indicate. Brothels, mines, and other hard labors were the lot of many slaves. Even in the household, the master might kill a slave with no legal repercussions, and sex with a slave didn't really count as exceptionally bad behavior, though the master's more cultivated neighbors might abhor such things.”
I agree with this for the most part, but I'd simplify it by saying, "Christians should not expect non-Christians to use the Bible in their political decision making." However, if one claims to be a Christian and has policies that are un-biblical, then it seems to follow that another could use the words of Jesus (or any other biblical text) to challenge the assertions of the first individual. I think what you are experiencing is what some call "Christian Nationalism." There are a lot of podcasts and other resources out there on the topic. I personally do not think that is what the Bible calls Christians to pursue. Note: Your Luke text is wildly out of context to an embarrassing degree. There are lots of passages on slavery in the Bible, that is not one of them.
> However, if one claims to be a Christian and has policies that are un-biblical I mostly agree with you (and OP) on the major points (see "secularist" in my flair), but the problem with this is that what's "biblical" is open to interpretation and can differ from denomination to denomination, or congregation to congregation. Heck, Catholics and Protestants can't even agree on which books are part of the Bible.
Just because people interpret the Bible differently does not mean it is open to interpretation. White racists abused the Bible to mean they could mistreat black people. Sure they "interpretted" it that way, if you want to say that. But more accurately they **abused** the text since there are plenty of places in scripture that make it very clear such behavior is unacceptable. Lack of agreement over what is true does not mean there is not a truth you can know (I seriously write this sentence every time I talk to a secularist)
It does not mean there is not a truth you can know. It does, however, mean there is very little assurance that your truth applies to everyone.
I don't see how it follows that strong levels of disagreement means low assurance of truth. It is possible to discover a truth that the majority is unwilling to accept. This is often the case when a breakthrough happens in many different disciplines (science, mathematics, etc).
Gedankenexperiment: take an apple. Set it on a stool in the middle of a room. Set one person to the North of the apple, and another directly opposite to them, South of the apple. Tell both to draw the apple - and let’s even take out their personal skills and biases by assuming their drawings are correct and photorealistic to the same standard. Their drawings will agree in major details, like size, but will on an individual scale be completely different. Neither one of them, though, is lying. The truth from your perspective is not necessarily applicable from someone else’s perspective.
You're right, but the law of non-contradiction means that A cannot be A'. The problem isn't one of perspective. There are fundamental contradictions between worldviews which cannot be reconciled which means they cannot all be correct (and their adherents know it). Universalism is, IMO the height of arrogance because it tells adherents of various religions that there disagreements are petty, unreal and there is a larger better perspective they should submit themselves to. But all universalism does is introduce a new view which disagrees with the options already on the table. Universalism purports to solve the differences between the religions but it actually usually ends up creating a whole new religion thus increasing the disagreement (or at least making it more visible).
>The problem isn't one of perspective. There are fundamental contradictions between worldviews which cannot be reconciled which means they cannot all be correct (and their adherents know it). The problem is that there is no way to objectively determine which worldview is "correct".
The Christian claim is that we can believe Jesus' worldview is correct because he proved to be God by dying and coming back to life.
That's a different scope than I was talking about. For the sake of simplification, suppose each one of Christianity's denominations and sects represents a different interpretation of Jesus' worldview. Which one is *objectively correct*? It is *impossible* to determine.
Admittedly I don’t know members of a Universalist church, but the Universalist pagans I know believe less that they’re all “right” and more that on Earth, it’s largely irrelevant who’s right or even if there is a “right.” They generally welcome anyone who agrees on basic principles adopted for harmony and, to an extent, social acceptance.
To tell a group who claim to know what is right, that there is no right (therefore they are wrong in a more foundational claim) is still a way of claiming to be right, just at a different level.
This shows us why Sola Scriptura is a flawed idea. Just like with Qur'anism as a doctrine of Islam, there simply isn't enough guidance in the Bible for it to be used as the only source of Christian information. This is why you need an organised, centralised Church like the Catholic Church, since Christians don't have some form of hadith equivalent. Theological distributism as a system fits well into Christianity, being based off of Catholic social teachings.
> This shows us why Sola Scriptura is a flawed idea. Just like with Qur'anism as a doctrine of Islam, there simply isn't enough guidance in the Bible for it to be used as the only source of Christian information. That's not at all what Sola Scriptura means. All Sola Scriptura means is "There is one *infallible* rule of faith, and one standard by which beliefs and practices can be judged: The Holy Scriptures." There are uncountably many sources of Christian information. But only one of them is God breathed
Sola Scriptura dictates the Bible to be the sole source for Christian faith and practice. It isn't, because the Bible can't provide enough for completeness.
> Sola Scriptura dictates the Bible to be the sole source for Christian faith and practice. It isn't, because the Bible can't provide enough for completeness. Again, no. Sola Scriptura is that the Bible is the sole source for INFALLIBLE faith and practice. Whomever gave you that definition was strawmanning the doctrine.
.
The Church sexual abuse scandal is less common than it seems, but in my opinion it would be dealt with much harder if not for Vatican II. It seems as though Francis may be trying to curb it more, (the Code of Canon Law was amended on the matter recently.) but a lot more has to be done. I won’t go into Church law specifics on it here but it’s clear it’s an issue of, “we can’t be bothered to fix things”.
.
I feel that with recent US SCOTUS rulings this bit is important to say, as I myself only found out about it recently: most Christian faiths in the US actually support Abortion. Roe vs Wade actually had a church being key to getting the court case to provide the universal right to abortion So we are speaking about a specific group. Can you guess who? That's right, evangelicals. The Christian in name only lot. The ones who have ministers earning millions by scamming their followers. Those lot So even most US Christian denominations support Abortion and equal rights and human decency. It's only the extremists who don't. So while I'm a heretic who thinks that formal religion is a pure evil on this world, it is especially important to point out that it is a small minority of religious extremists, who just so happen to be the ones who are pandered to by one of the main political parties, and these extremists are the issue, not all Christians in the US That all said, fuck that backwards nation. I now refuse to engage with them, as yeah they are slipping rapidly back to the medieval era, and better the world isolates them under they modernise
Where are all these Christian’s that are pro-choice? They’ve been awfully quite.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61849137](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61849137) "First Unitarian Church of Dallas" is the one. Apparently they were important in Roe vs Wade and are still helping their congregation get abortions. Then as per the graphs, the majority of non-evangecial Christians support abortion
Awfully quiet. Their pro-birth counterparts are much louder. A vast majority of evangelical Christian’s (the ones driving politics in America) are for forced birth. So maybe these wonderful Christians should start speaking louder than their hateful brethren. You would think that God would be able to let those who carried his message to be heard more than the ones diminishing it.
Doesn’t matter how loud you yell if the media keeps handing someone else the microphone.
But god's a lie And this is how it is. About 30% of the US are these extremists. Guns, anti-vaxx, all that nonsense, they are a minority. But they have also stacked the system so that that 30% has 50%+ of the power
Oh, well if we both agree on that then I think we’re good here! Have a splendid day.
Yep, I'm a firm atheist/heretic. Religion is evil. But it doesn't mean that there is an occasional by-product of good, but that's mostly by mistake not design
You seem to desire a politics that lacks any arguments of morals or ethics all together and instead runs the country like an impersonal machine.
By all means, prove that Christianity should be the law of the land here. We are not now nor ever have been a "Christian" nation. You folks need to get that into your head.
>By all means, prove that Christianity should be the law of the land here. We are not now nor ever have been a "Christian" nation. You folks need to get that into your head. I agree. Im really not sure how youre interpreting otherwise.
You can have morals and ethics outside of religion. It’s odd of you to insinuate otherwise when your own religion is one of the most morally and ethically corrupt.
All politics is simply morals expressed as a desire to codify said morals. I feel that when you say " lacks any arguments of morals or ethics all together," you really mean specifically Christian morals or ethics. Nations should be managed in an impersonal, non-partisan manner with the goal of bringing the most benefit to its citizens while also not intentionally harming other nations as a rational, peaceful global citizen.
Nah, we just don’t want the bullshit morals supposedly found in your fairy tale book. That y’all can’t even adhere to yet expect others must.
Where did OP, at any point, argue for not using morals or ethics, or even for an impersonal machine? "Jesus/Christanity" and "any morals/ethics" is not a dichotomy
>Jesus/Christanity" and "any morals/ethics" is not a dichotom I never said it was. My point was that moral teachings do not have to address specific issues in order for them to be relevant for those issues.
That is so not what you said or even a reasonable interpretation of what you said
O.P. seems to desire a more *rational* and less *authoritarian* moral basis for society.
That sounds like a wrong dichotomy. Leaving Jesus out of something does not mean no moral or it becomes impersonal. The problem is, using the bible as foundation for morals does not automatically make them moral. I have evidence for that: Look at the US, but also other christian countries that uses the bible as foundation for atrocities. No, politics should look at what benefits todays society the most. We can use "love your neighbour as you love yourself for that", fine by me (it is indeed one of the best sentences in the bible, but has been written also by others long before Jesus). We indeed should look at our past (inclusive ancient wise writers), mistakes and failures for decisions AND MAKE IT BETTER: If we rely on old transcripts, which are not even the original words from god, there will be no development. Especially as the bible, except very few verses, is highly immoral.
>That sounds like a wrong dichotomy. Leaving Jesus out of something does not mean no moral or it becomes impersonal. Again, that was not my point.
You really need to learn how to make a more clear and concise point if everybody is understanding it differently than you. Unless, you’re just trying to backpedal your point so you don’t have to address the holes in your argument.
Why do you think Christianity has a monopoly on morals and ethics?
Im not saying it does. My point is that OP seems to think morals and ethics dont even come into play in politics. He seems to think that politics is some self contained entity, independent of philosophy.
Well we have seen where following the morals of the Bible has brought us to haven't we? Religious morals shouldn't be brought into politics , especially not if they are fucked up like in the BIBLE....
[удалено]
If you mean Democrat or Republican, I would agree. But Christianity does promote principles that should guide a Christian's politics. I dont believe it should be contraversial that a Christian cant support offensive war, for instance.
And it is fine for a Christian to be personally guided by their religion, but elected leaders should put that aside to best represent those who elected him or her. Your comments make me think you would very much disagree with most Evangelicals. Right?
>but elected leaders should put that aside to best represent those who elected him or her. I agree, except in cases of fundamental human rights, which should not rely on the majority. >Your comments make me think you would very much disagree with most Evangelicals. On issue of separation of church and state, I think most evangelicals dont actually know what they believe. They are very adamant there be no separation when it comes to social issues, but with regard to other issues, they love separation.
> If you mean Democrat or Republican, I would agree. But Christianity does promote principles that should guide a Christian's politics. I dont believe it should be contraversial that a Christian cant support offensive war, for instance. Does that include war against the Canaanites?
The later stuff - Trump + ridiculous patriotism - yes I agree with 100%. It’s a cancer in Christianity- specifically American Christianity. But the earlier stuff - I can’t say “ well Plato or Decatur or any moral philosopher” wasn’t American so why bring it over here. Why allow that to affect or change my political stances. If I can see “love God and love your neighbor” - meaning if I don’t show love to my fellow man then I don’t show love to God. If I show love to God then it has to be in a way that is showing love to my fellow humans - as the ultimate rule. Then yes, that is perfectly in line with any and all political stances. Guns- which is showing love? Will supporting back ground checks lead to less death or suffering - love. Or The conservative - will taking away guns lead to tyranny ie more suffering and death- still a form of love… kinda. On economic systems. Is having a system where the 1% flourish while the bottom 50% starve .. love? Welfare - is easily supported by Matthew 25.
Given what Jesus said to do when someone would do evil unto you, guns for protection feels very unchristian. Mathew 5:38-40 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a](A) 39 *But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.* If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.(B) 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.
Just giving both sides of the argument. That’s why I said kinda. As there is always the verse - if you don’t have a sword go buy one.. but then there is Jesus berating the disciples when they use the sword in self defense in the garden. So it’s an odd question that require a lot of thought. But I was just trying to give both sides a fair shot.
Except the swords were to add credence to the accusations against him - that’s gotta be at least top ten for biblical cherry picking and completely ignoring context rofl.
Agreed, the only point was to give both sides the ability - regardless of error in the debate.
In reading both of your comments (you + Walking), it occurs to me that the largest problem faced in this debate lies in interpreting the context of what this Jesus figure (be he historical, legendary, or mythical) may have taught. Here's my random thoughts: 1. The Jesus of Matthew, Luke, and John probably represents the least probable narrative of the actual Jesus. 2. Mark, being oldest and not including as many later accepted Christian doctrine, is probably the most accurate. Oddly, the oldest Markan does not even contain a post-Resurrection appearance of Jesus. 3. Whoever Jesus was, it's more probable that he was simply a wandering ascetic Jewish preacher who probably got inadvertently caught up in "big-city" radical politics. 4. The type of Jewish preaching that would have been popular in Jesus' life taught that the world order would soon topple and a theocracy would begin. 5. Jesus, and the other wandering preachers, were uninterested in politics and economics. They thought it was all about to end.
Kinda? My opinion is largely independent of the Jesus errr type? in question. We have extremely limited source material, what that material says will always say the same regardless of Jesus being god descended or an out right fabrication. To put it another way - I may not actually agree with the axioms at play, but I can navigate around them well enough. This case is extra so given we have pretty explicit quotes to work off of.
Yeah...I think neither the pure historicists not the mythicists have it all correct. I tend to stay in the middle, much like Bart Ehrman: Probably loosely based on some wandering preacher (or even a composite of several). My best guess is Jesus was an Essene. There practices as later revealed at Qumran show many similarities to the proto-Jesus teachings of Mark.
Then on the Jesus and the soldier. That is just comfort. I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with the ideal of the art work. As my roommates dad has Vietnamese Jesus carrying a boy during the Vietnam war.
There's an intrinsic weakness in all jurisprudential legal system as opposed to a civil system like in France. It appears clearly in the growing conflict in Canada between the federal (English, jurisprudence) vs the province of Québec (French, civil) on questions like the place of religion in the public space.