The Stuff Jesus Never Did.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

So He came to to save us and teach us His basic principles of living but not so that we should rule ourselves by them???

He taught His followers principles by which they should live - but that is very different from laying down rules for a society where His followers would be in a small minority, or even where they might be in a majority (not that I think true Christians have ever been other than a minority in any society).

This is one reason why I am a Christian secularist. As a pastor I teach those genuinely want to follow Christ how we should order our lives according to the Word of God, but I vehemently oppose any attempt to legislate Christian moral values or behaviour onto others.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

So you think Jesus wrote Ephesians? That is quite an extraordinary claim.

No Jesus did not write any of the bible personally, that's not really the point. If the book does not accurately reflect the positions of Jesus to the extent that he would have written it himself it's just a book written by some random guys and not divine revelation.

PDN wrote: »

I can think of any number of other horrendous practices that Jesus did not explicitly condemn. If He had taken the time to condemn every one of them then He would have lived to be 500 and the New Testament would contain 2700 books instead of 27.

The truth, of course, is that Jesus did not come as a legislator to give a set of laws for society to live by. He came to die on the Cross so that people could be forgiven of their sins. He also taught basic principles of what it means to live in that forgiveness - such as turning the other cheek, loving your neighbour as yourself, and servant leadership. These principles, of course, are what motivated abolitionists such as William Wilberforce to get the North Atlantic slave trade abolished. The suppression of these same principles is one reason why you have slavery in North Korea.

There are a lot of things that the bible doesn't mention in condemnation or otherwise but slavery is explicitly mentioned in the new testament and the general guidelines for how it should be carried out are given. It explicitly states that servants should be "obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling". This is not an abolitionist statement, it is an explicit endorsement of slavery. Slavery was only abolished when people overcame biblical morality by taking the parts that are independently moral such as love thy neighbour and leaving the parts that aren't. If christian morality was truly absolute then there would be no reason for slavery to be carried out any differently today to how it was under the old testament god. If it was moral then, it's moral now

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So you think Jesus wrote Ephesians? That is quite an extraordinary claim.

Are you implying that god or Jesus didn't inspire the words that Sam quoted?

PDN wrote: »

He also taught basic principles of what it means to live in that forgiveness - such as turning the other cheek, loving your neighbour as yourself, and servant leadership. These principles, of course, are what motivated abolitionists such as William Wilberforce to get the North Atlantic slave trade abolished. The suppression of these same principles is one reason why you have slavery in North Korea.

Standard response which points out that (a) plenty of other codes of conduct recommended social behaviour before Jesus said a few words about it (b) slavery was not condemned in the bible, suggesting a plausible reason why it took 1800 years and one Humanist Enlightenment to make one agitated christian (arguably) realise that slavery was a Bad Thing and (c) rebuttal of simplistic comment on the appalling situation in the DPRK.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No Jesus did not write any of the bible personally, that's not really the point. If the book does not accurately reflect the positions of Jesus to the extent that he would have written it himself it's just a book written by some random guys and not divine revelation.

Absolute nonsense! Ephesians was written by the apostle Paul as he instructed fellow Christians how to live. Christians believe that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit - but to say that Jesus must have condoned slavery because Paul referred to the institution is the kind of nonsense that, sadly, non-Christians keep bringing into this forum in order to disrupt sensible discussion.

Please refrain from such antics in future.

There are a lot of things that the bible doesn't mention in condemnation or otherwise but slavery is explicitly mentioned in the new testament and the general guidelines for how it should be carried out are given. It explicitly states that servants should be "obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling". This is not an abolitionist statement, it is an explicit endorsement of slavery.

Again, you are quite wrong.

Paul wrote instructions to believers who were living in a particular society and culture, and he told them how Christians should behave.

I have been asked, in the past, to give advice to people living in all kinds of conditions. For example, to Chinese Christians who are living under the 'One Child Policy'. My advice to them did not address whether the One Child Policy was good or bad - but I told them how Christians should live in a society that has such a law. Only a complete troll would claim that I was thereby endorsing the One Child Policy.

Slavery was only abolished when people overcame biblical morality by taking the parts that are independently moral such as love thy neighbour and leaving the parts that aren't. If christian morality was truly absolute then there would be no reason for slavery to be carried out any differently today to how it was under the old testament god. If it was moral then, it's moral now

Again that is simplistic and untrue. Slavery was abolished because people who took the business of following Jesus seized the opportunity to prevent a moral evil taking place.

Christians believe that morality is absolute in that it is given by God and not invented to suit our own feelings.

However, actions that are moral in one context are not moral in another. For example, during WWII, when blackout restrictions were in force to prevent entire communities being bombed, it would be moral for the State's representatives to forcibly enter your home and draw your curtains. However, it would not be moral for them to act similarly in 2009 if you forgot to close your curtains while watching TV.

Similarly, the laws of Leviticus were given for a generation of Israeli escaped slaves who were occupying a territory where they would be surrounded by hostile tribes determined to wipe them out. Therefore the rules for conquest and initial settlement of the land (while much more enlightened than any other civilization of that age) still have much of an 'emergency powers' feel about them.

However, only a complete muppet would try to insist that the same rules should apply to modern societies which live in vastly different circumstances.

Maybe you should try reading up a wee bit on ethics? It's actually a very interesting subject.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Standard response which points out that (a) plenty of other codes of conduct recommended social behaviour before Jesus said a few words about it

And your point is? No-one has claimed that Jesus was the first to recommend social behaviour. And my point was that Jesus did not come to tell society how to behave. So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

slavery was not condemned in the bible, suggesting a plausible reason why it took 1800 years and one Humanist Enlightenment to make one agitated christian (arguably) realise that slavery was a Bad Thing

So, you're arguing that only one abolitionist was (arguably) a Christian? Or are you trying to say that no Christians saw slavery as a bad thing in the first 1800 years of the Church?

bakkiesbotha

PDN wrote: »

Christians believe that morality is absolute ...
However, actions that are moral in one context are not moral in another.

Just after giving me an infraction for saying that Christianity is contradictory... you go on to say in one breath that morality is absolute and in the next that it is relative.

Clear thinking at its finest.

PDN

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

Just after giving me an infraction for saying that Christianity is contradictory... you go on to say in one breath that morality is absolute and in the next that it is relative.

Clear thinking at its finest.

If you'd bother to read my post properly you would see that it is clear.

The Christian view of morality is that it is absolute in the sense that it comes from an objective outside source, not from our subjective feelings. It is also relative in that an action that is moral in one context may not be moral in another. This is hardly contradictory.

If you want to discuss your well-deserved infraction then I would advise you to do it by PM or the Helpdesk, rather than earning another for backseat modding.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

And your point is? No-one has claimed that Jesus was the first to recommend social behaviour. And my point was that Jesus did not come to tell society how to behave. So I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

All I'm doing is pointing out that in one post you claimed that what Jesus said in the general sense motivated Wilberforce to do something about slavery. This post, you're saying that Jesus wasn't the first guy to say such things and in any case, wasn't here to provide moral guidance (why use him as an example of a teacher of morals then?)

I think you should decide on a single position. Then stick to it!

PDN

robindch wrote: »

All I'm doing is pointing out that in one post you claimed that what Jesus said in the general sense motivated Wilberforce to do something about slavery. This post, you're saying that Jesus wasn't the first guy to say such things and in any case, wasn't here to provide moral guidance (why use him as an example of a teacher of morals then?)

I think you should decide on a single position. Then stick to it!

It wasn't clear what you were saying. That's why I asked you to clarify.

My position is consistent enough:

1. Jesus did not give a list of rules for society to live by.
2. He died in order for people to be saved and enter into a relationship with Him.
3. This relationship means a change of life for us, and Jesus gave us some principles which we can apply to various circumstances and institutions.
4. True Christians are, and always have been, a minority in society - so Jesus giving them moral guidance hardly equates to a blueprint for societal behaviour.
5. Even if Christians were to become a majority, it would be wrong for them to force their values or morality on others.
6. Individual Christians (eg Wilberforce, Martin Luther King etc) have been motivated by their faith and values to change society and relieve human suffering. This does not happen by enforcing their morality on society, but by giving convincing reasons for non-christians to behave in a more humane fashion.

I believe it is a consistent and coherent position, and, tbh, I think your over-simplistic attempts to misrepresent it as contradictory are a rhetorical device that diminishes you rather than me.

chachabinx

I wonder did he like to smoke the ganja... after all his dad did create it

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

Please refrain from such antics in future.

I do not want my lack of response on this matter to be misconstrued as an admission that PDN is in any way correct.

Deleted as it is backseat modding and PDN felt it better to edit it than to issue an infraction.

I kindly request that you do not delete this post as you did my last one

bakkiesbotha

PDN wrote: »

If you'd bother to read my post properly you would see that it is clear.

The Christian view of morality is that it is absolute in the sense that it comes from an objective outside source, not from our subjective feelings. It is also relative in that an action that is moral in one context may not be moral in another. This is hardly contradictory.

If you want to discuss your well-deserved infraction then I would advise you to do it by PM or the Helpdesk, rather than earning another for backseat modding.

So Christian morality comes from God and God says that the rules he has laid down do not apply in every situation. Chapter and verse please.

PDN

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

So Christian morality comes from God and God says that the rules he has laid down do not apply in every situation. Chapter and verse please.

If you're looking for simplistic positions where every position needs a single proof text then I can point you to some fundamentalist discussion boards.

However, if you're willing to engage in some more reasonable discussion then consider that the New Testament clearly states that many of the Old Testament laws are no longer to be obeyed today. Try reading Galatians.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

For example, during WWII, when blackout restrictions were in force to prevent entire communities being bombed, it would be moral for the State's representatives to forcibly enter your home and draw your curtains. However, it would not be moral for them to act similarly in 2009 if you forgot to close your curtains while watching TV.

Similarly, the laws of Leviticus were given for a generation of Israeli escaped slaves who were occupying a territory where they would be surrounded by hostile tribes determined to wipe them out. Therefore the rules for conquest and initial settlement of the land (while much more enlightened than any other civilization of that age) still have much of an 'emergency powers' feel about them.

However, only a complete muppet would try to insist that the same rules should apply to modern societies which live in vastly different circumstances.

Are you seriously suggesting that the circumstances justified things like the Leviticus laws, in the same way that the threat of a bomb justifies the breaking of a privacy prevision?

What "context" justifies POW slavery and forced marriage? What "context" justifies genocide of children?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the circumstances justified things like the Leviticus laws, in the same way that the threat of a bomb justifies the breaking of a privacy prevision?

What "context" justifies POW slavery and forced marriage? What "context" justifies genocide of children?

No, if you had read my post carefully you would see that I didn't justify any practice. That is a different debate altogether (one of the usual off-topic rabbit trails you guys try to drag us down when you don't make any headway with the original topic in the OP).

What I said is that certain laws were designed for a particular set of circumstances, and that therefore it is consistent to believe in absolute morality, but to see certain laws as no longer applicable because of changed circumstances.

bakkiesbotha

PDN wrote: »

If you're looking for simplistic positions where every position needs a single proof text then I can point you to some fundamentalist discussion boards.

However, if you're willing to engage in some more reasonable discussion then consider that the New Testament clearly states that many of the Old Testament laws are no longer to be obeyed today. Try reading Galatians.

The opposite of 'simple' isn't 'reasonable.' It's 'complicated,' or 'convoluted.' Likewise, clarifying the fundamentals of something is not the same as being a fundamentalist.

Your religion is supposed to be something that illiterate people could understand and follow two thousand years ago. So why aren't you able to simplify any aspect of your beliefs, and express them in clear, plain English?

I believe it is because you know that that this would expose their inherent unsoundness.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, if you had read my post carefully you would see that I didn't justify any practice. That is a different debate altogether (one of the usual off-topic rabbit trails you guys try to drag us down when you don't make any headway with the original topic in the OP).

What I said is that certain laws were designed for a particular set of circumstances, and that therefore it is consistent to believe in absolute morality, but to see certain laws as no longer applicable because of changed circumstances.

Yes but that is your own little rabbit hole, the distraction that of course now a days Christians aren't going to genocide France.

But then that was not the issue. That is what you guys would like to be the issue because you can point out all the wonderful things Jesus said that would mean you would never do this. Phew!, no need to worry. But you are doing it because you have been told not to, not because it is immoral. It is moral to do this if God tells you do, or more specifically until God tells you not to.

The issue is that God is unchanging, so if it was moral to genocide Canaan back then then it must still be moral to have genocide Canaan today. God didn't make a mistake, nor has he changed his mind.

Same with slavery. Slavery was moral. Therefore Slavery IS moral. It was moral to invade a neighbouring country, kill everyone except the virgins and then take the virgins in forced marriage. Given absolute morality that is still a moral thing. You can say that there must be certain circumstances in order to genocide a nation and take slaves from them, but that still means both genocide and slavery are moral to a Christian.

Everything in the Old Testament is moral. Slavery is moral, rape is moral, war is moral, infant side is moral, genocide is moral.

And you guys wonder why non-Christians put very little weight in the idea of Christian "morality"

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Absolute nonsense! Ephesians was written by the apostle Paul as he instructed fellow Christians how to live. Christians believe that Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit - but to say that Jesus must have condoned slavery because Paul referred to the institution is the kind of nonsense that, sadly, non-Christians keep bringing into this forum in order to disrupt sensible discussion.

Please refrain from such antics in future.

Holy spirit = god = jesus. Therefore, if Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then he was inspired by Jesus.

PDN wrote: »

Again that is simplistic and untrue. Slavery was abolished because people who took the business of following Jesus seized the opportunity to prevent a moral evil taking place.

Why did it take them 1800 years to do it? Why couldn't Jesus have said something against it when he was alive? Why did he inspire Paul to just give people regulations on it instead of inspiring people to abolish it way back then?

PDN wrote: »

Christians believe that morality is absolute in that it is given by God and not invented to suit our own feelings.

However, actions that are moral in one context are not moral in another.

Assuming you still believe in human free will, then you must believe those contexts are largely decided by other humans. This means that gods absolute morality, which is supposed to be ever lasting and never changing, is also dependent on the actions of humans, as if humans start doing things different, contexts are changed and things that once where moral, no longer are. How can you not see the contradiction?

PDN wrote: »

Similarly, the laws of Leviticus were given for a generation of Israeli escaped slaves who were occupying a territory where they would be surrounded by hostile tribes determined to wipe them out. Therefore the rules for conquest and initial settlement of the land (while much more enlightened than any other civilization of that age) still have much of an 'emergency powers' feel about them.

However, only a complete muppet would try to insist that the same rules should apply to modern societies which live in vastly different circumstances.

Why? According to you these laws are inspired by god (or Jesus or the holy spirit). He didn't mention any time limit on the laws back then, they where meant to be absolute? Also, why couldn't he have just stopped slavery back then? Why did he wait to inspire people to stop slavery 1800 years later?

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

What I said is that certain laws were designed for a particular set of circumstances, and that therefore it is consistent to believe in absolute morality, but to see certain laws as no longer applicable because of changed circumstances.

Does it say that in the bible? Did these laws come with a time frame or a massive list of caveats? "Slavery is only wrong till I say otherwise", or "Thou shall not kill (unless you think he deserves it)"?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but that is your own little rabbit hole, the distraction that of course now a days Christians aren't going to genocide France.

But then that was not the issue. That is what you guys would like to be the issue because you can point out all the wonderful things Jesus said that would mean you would never do this. Phew!, no need to worry. But you are doing it because you have been told not to, not because it is immoral. It is moral to do this if God tells you do, or more specifically until God tells you not to.

The issue is that God is unchanging, so if it was moral to genocide Canaan back then then it must still be moral to have genocide Canaan today. God didn't make a mistake, nor has he changed his mind.

Same with slavery. Slavery was moral. Therefore Slavery IS moral. It was moral to invade a neighbouring country, kill everyone except the virgins and then take the virgins in forced marriage. Given absolute morality that is still a moral thing. You can say that there must be certain circumstances in order to genocide a nation and take slaves from them, but that still means both genocide and slavery are moral to a Christian.

Everything in the Old Testament is moral. Slavery is moral, rape is moral, war is moral, infant side is moral, genocide is moral.

And you guys wonder why non-Christians put very little weight in the idea of Christian "morality"

Obeying God is ultimately what is Moral, speaking as a Christian. So all the acts above can technically be moral, like in OT times (Apart from rape, you jump to that conclusion but thats for another day). So invading Canaan at the mandate of God was moral. If I decide to do it today without Gods mandate it is Immoral. Remember, as Christians, we know God is going to return and wipe out most of the planet. He destroyed man woman and child in the great flood, and in Sodom and Gomorrah. I certainly have no issue with it, but I don't for a moment relate it to me justifying Hutu's wiping out Tutsi's, or Turks wiping out Armenians etc.

PDN

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

The opposite of 'simple' isn't 'reasonable.' It's 'complicated,' or 'convoluted.' Likewise, clarifying the fundamentals of something is not the same as being a fundamentalist.

Your religion is supposed to be something that illiterate people could understand and follow two thousand years ago. So why aren't you able to simplify any aspect of your beliefs, and express them in clear, plain English?

Clear plain English? Unfortunately that doesn't do much good if you're dealing with someone that doesn't know (or pretends not to know) the difference between 'simplistic' and 'simple'.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Holy spirit = god = jesus. Therefore, if Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit, then he was inspired by Jesus.

No, that is certainly not true.

If you want to participate in a discussion in the Christianity forum then maybe you should make an attempt to actuallly understand basic Christian beliefs.

The Holy Spirit is not Jesus.

Why did it take them 1800 years to do it? Why couldn't Jesus have said something against it when he was alive?

Anyone with even the faintest knowledge of Church History knows that many Christians opposed slavery for centuries.

True Christians have always been a minority in society, so their ability to achieve any societal change at all is impressive.

Again, Jesus was not a political commentator or a lawgiver. He came to be the Saviour.

Assuming you still believe in human free will, then you must believe those contexts are largely decided by other humans. This means that gods absolute morality, which is supposed to be ever lasting and never changing, is also dependent on the actions of humans, as if humans start doing things different, contexts are changed and things that once where moral, no longer are. How can you not see the contradiction?

You inventing a contradiction in your head won't make me see anything.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I certainly have no issue with it, but I don't for a moment relate it to me justifying Hutu's wiping out Tutsi's, or Turks wiping out Armenians etc.

Of course, but it comes down to justifications for why you wouldn't allow or tolerate that.

To me the execution of a child is immoral in of itself, it is immoral based on what it is.

On the other than to a Christian it is immoral because God says it is, and if he didn't say so it would be perfectly moral. What it is is irrelevant.

This is why claims that Christians abolished slavery out of a desire for humans to act more humanly towards other humans ring hollow. Christians have no issue, as you say, with one human acting viciously and violently towards another human if that is what God wants. The act is not the problem, it is simply a question of authority.

Wilberforce either was ignoring the Old Testament or concluding that slavery is ok but not in the context of British slavery because God has not sanctioned that. I imagine it was the former, but since I can find no quotes from Wilberforce dealing with Old Testament slavery I cannot say that with authority.

Getting back more to the issue at hand, if there is actually nothing wrong with genociding your neighbours, or slavery, why is God not commanding we do this any more. Christians are still under threat, still persecuted, as the Israelites were. The answer 6,000 years ago was for God to give great power to their armies to allow them to destroy their enemies and take their lands for themselves. Christians don't do this any more, despite suffering today.

What changed in God's view towards humanity. Why, based on principles from God, were 18th century Christians figuring out that slavery was immoral yet, also based on instruction from God, 6th century BC Israelites weren't?

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

No, that is certainly not true.

If you want to participate in a discussion in the Christianity forum then maybe you should make an attempt to actuallly understand basic Christian beliefs.

The Holy Spirit is not Jesus.

Jesus is god, true or false? The holy spirit is god, true or false? They are all different aspects of the same entity, but ultimately the same thing thing. Its a fairly simple christian concept called the trinity, I'm suprised you dont know of it.

PDN wrote: »

Anyone with even the faintest knowledge of Church History knows that many Christians opposed slavery for centuries.

Its funny then that Jesus himself didn't, and that Paul even laid down regulations for it.

PDN wrote: »

Again, Jesus was not a political commentator or a lawgiver. He came to be the Saviour.

But not the saviour of those enslaved though?

PDN wrote: »

You inventing a contradiction in your head won't make me see anything.

The contradiction is there, plain to see. either you go through my actual quote and display the lack of a contradiction or admit you are wrong. This pathetic issue dodging is really getting old at this stage, counter my point or admit you are wrong.

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Jesus is god, true or false? The holy spirit is god, true or false? They are all different aspects of the same entity, but ultimately the same thing thing. Its a fairly simple christian concept called the trinity, I'm suprised you dont know of it.

It's far from simple methinks

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Jesus is god, true or false? The holy spirit is god, true or false? They are all different aspects of the same entity, but ultimately the same thing thing. Its a fairly simple christian concept called the trinity, I'm suprised you dont know of it.

I've heard of it, but, unlike you, I understand it.

The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Godhead consists of three Persons who are distinct from one another. For example, the Holy Spirit did not die upon the Cross.

Its funny then that Jesus himself didn't, and that Paul even laid down regulations for it.

Not funny at all. Jesus did not come to pass judgement on every human institution. Amazingly enough he didn't even tell us whether republicanism is better than a constitutional monarchy.

Paul laid down guidelines for Christians living under the Roman Empire, but that doesn't mean he endorsed the Roman Empire.

But not the saviour of those enslaved though?

Those who are enslaved have often found salvation in Christ.

The contradiction is there, plain to see. either you go through my actual quote and display the lack of a contradiction or admit you are wrong. This pathetic issue dodging is really getting old at this stage, counter my point or admit you are wrong.

Dodging no issue whatsoever. I've already stated that an act may be moral in one context but not in another. Who or what created those contexts is neither here nor there. It is not immoral to shout 'Fire!' if you are on your own in the forest. It is immoral to do so in a crowded theatre.

God's morality is absolute in that it comes to us from an objective source, not from our own imaginations. However, what is moral for one person is not necessarily moral for another. For example, it is moral for me to restrain my child from going to a place I don't wish her to go. However, if you similarly restrained her then that would be immoral.

Now, where is this contradiction of which you speak?

Sam Vimes

I can't let this go unanswered.

PDN wrote: »

I've heard of it, but, unlike you, I understand it.

The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Godhead consists of three Persons who are distinct from one another. For example, the Holy Spirit did not die upon the Cross.

Unless you are suggesting that the moral standards of god, jesus and the holy spirit are different then the fact that they are separate persons is irrelevant. They all share the same opinion that inspired Paul to lay down the rules by which slavery should be done, not to condemn it which is the only moral stance to take on slavery

PDN wrote: »

Not funny at all. Jesus did not come to pass judgement on every human institution. Amazingly enough he didn't even tell us whether republicanism is better than a constitutional monarchy.

Paul laid down guidelines for Christians living under the Roman Empire, but that doesn't mean he endorsed the Roman Empire.

That is not a moral issue and again, there is a difference between not mentioning something and explicitly laying down rules for something which is now rightly considered morally reprehensible by all rational human beings, christian or otherwise.

PDN wrote: »

Dodging no issue whatsoever. I've already stated that an act may be moral in one context but not in another. Who or what created those contexts is neither here nor there. It is not immoral to shout 'Fire!' if you are on your own in the forest. It is immoral to do so in a crowded theatre.

God's morality is absolute in that it comes to us from an objective source, not from our own imaginations. However, what is moral for one person is not necessarily moral for another. For example, it is moral for me to restrain my child from going to a place I don't wish her to go. However, if you similarly restrained her then that would be immoral.

Now, where is this contradiction of which you speak?

Yes, sometimes it is appropriate to do something and sometimes it's not. The "wrongness" of the act is determined by if others are harmed and if there is an overriding good outcome from the act. Killing someone is wrong but killing someone who is trying to kill your child is self defence and as you point out, shouting fire in a forest is fine but in a theatre doing so harms others by causing a panic. Similarly making stabbing motions with a knife is fine but if someone happens to be standing in front of you they're going to die. In each of these cases I can explain why the act is immoral in one case and not the other.

However, there is no cultural or social context in which it is morally acceptable to, for example, rape a child. There is no good outcome, there is only harm, the only benefit is the sexual gratification of the rapist. Similarly there is no possible justification to mitigate the wrongness of robbing another human being of his freedom and forcing him to work for you. There is no mitigating factor, no overriding moral purpose, the only benefit is to the slave master who does not have to do any work. If slavery was morally acceptable in the old testament, it is acceptable today. In reality of course slavery was never morally acceptable

Unless you can explain why owning another human being and forcing him to work for you was morally acceptable 2000 years ago but exactly the same act is immoral today, with only the time and place changing and not the way in which people are effected, making an appeal to "cultural context" is pointless.

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can't let this go unanswered.


Unless you are suggesting that the moral standards of god, jesus and the holy spirit are different then the fact that they are separate persons is irrelevant. They all share the same opinion that inspired Paul to lay down the rules by which slavery should be done, not to condemn it which is the only moral stance to take on slavery

I've lost count of how many times you've said you won't post here any more, so I'm not overly surprised that you came back within a few hours. You can't let it go unanswered because you are the one who made the utterly false claim that Jesus endorsed slavery.

So, if someone who shares my moral standards makes a statement, then it logically follows that I made that statement? That makes no sense at all.

By the way, condemning slavery is not the only moral stance to take on slavery. It is perfectly moral to give advice to people how they should live in a society where slavery exists, but not to mention whether slavery is moral or not. I preach to people in the US who live in a capitalist society, and sometimes they ask my advice on how they should behave in certain situations that crop up at work. Expressing my own opinion on capitalism would only serve as a distraction - so I concentrate on my real job which is teaching them how to live as Christians.

That is not a moral issue and again, there is a difference between not mentioning something and explicitly laying down rules for something which is now rightly considered morally reprehensible by all rational human beings, christian or otherwise.

Jesus didn't lay down rules for slavery.

Paul, not Jesus, laying down guidelines as to how to behave under a system does not equate to endorsing that system.

Yes, sometimes it is appropriate to do something and sometimes it's not. The "wrongness" of the act is determined by if others are harmed and if there is an overriding good outcome from the act. Killing someone is wrong but killing someone who is trying to kill your child is self defence and as you point out, shouting fire in a forest is fine but in a theatre doing so harms others by causing a panic. Similarly making stabbing motions with a knife is fine but if someone happens to be standing in front of you they're going to die.

However, there is no cultural or social context in which it is morally acceptable to, for example, rape a child. There is no good outcome, there is only harm, the only benefit is the sexual gratification of the rapist. Similarly there is no possible justification to mitigate the wrongness of robbing another human being of his freedom and forcing him to work for you. There is no mitigating factor, no overriding moral purpose, the only benefit is to the slave master who does not have to do any work. If slavery was morally acceptable in the old testament, it is acceptable today. In reality of course slavery was never morally acceptable

No, the wrongness of an act may be determined by other factors than simply whether someone gets hurt or not. Although continuing that particular ethics debate would take us way further off topic than you have already dragged us.

Slavery is not equivalent to raping a child, as you well know.

I believe one form of slavery (indentured servants) was certainly moral in the context of emigration to America in the 17th Century. It represented the only way for a starving man to afford the boat passage to a new life. However, I do not believe such practices would be moral in today's socio-economic conditions (even though they are still practiced in most nation's military forces). Your absolutism, while amusing in an atheist, is far too simplistic for me.

stevejazzx

I never knew that Paul was 'inspired' by the holy spirit to lay down the laws fro slavery? how did that work? And if we're assuming that all morality works through some kind of relativism along the lines of what Jakkass suggested then whats was the context for slavery and, as Mark Hammil's asks, why was Jesus not the Saviour for them? More relativism?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Your absolutism, while amusing in an atheist, is far too simplistic for me.

What is the context that justifies the execution of children by soldiers?

Or is that absolutely bad?

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

To me the execution of a child is immoral in of itself, it is immoral based on what it is.

What justice are you appealing to?

On the other than to a Christian it is immoral because God says it is, and if he didn't say so it would be perfectly moral. What it is is irrelevant.

God has given us both a moral compass, so to say that based on Gods statutes alone we get our morality is false. The fact that the Christian see's God as the moral authority however, means that god can inform their morality through his statutes etc. God, being our authority, means that anything mandated by him is moral.

This is why claims that Christians abolished slavery out of a desire for humans to act more humanly towards other humans ring hollow. Christians have no issue, as you say, with one human acting viciously and violently towards another human if that is what God wants. The act is not the problem, it is simply a question of authority.

A dishonest assesment, but The question is, 'What does God want'. He certainly does not want humans acting viciously and violently towards one another. He wants them to hate wickedness, and when old Israel was around, he wanted wickedness purged from the nation. Acts of wickedness were punishable. God gave Israel a mandate as to punishment. However, we are not Israel, and we as Christians have no such Mandate. God however, will himself purge wickedness from this world in one final judgement. It matters not that someone wags a finger and wants to be there own moral authority. God see's the heart, see's the lies, the lusts, the desires, the wickedness, the deciet etc. It matters not the arguement. A persons heart is what will speak.

Wilberforce either was ignoring the Old Testament or concluding that slavery is ok but not in the context of British slavery because God has not sanctioned that. I imagine it was the former, but since I can find no quotes from Wilberforce dealing with Old Testament slavery I cannot say that with authority.

It matters not to me what Wilberforce reasoned. Thankfully he arrived at a Christian conclusion though.

Getting back more to the issue at hand, if there is actually nothing wrong with genociding your neighbours, or slavery, why is God not commanding we do this any more. Christians are still under threat, still persecuted, as the Israelites were. The answer 6,000 years ago was for God to give great power to their armies to allow them to destroy their enemies and take their lands for themselves. Christians don't do this any more, despite suffering today.

We are not Israel. We are not a geographical nation belonged to God. Gods spiritual nation Israel exists throughout every nation. How God dealt with the enemies of his people back then are a revelation of how he will deal with the enemies of his people in the future. As well as wiping out every tear from the eye of his people, he will wipe out every wickedness from the face of the earth. Our mandate as his people now, is to give the good news of the kingdom to all peoples, so that they may be brought home to the bosom of their creator. Gods nation is no longer a Physical state, it is a spiritual one. Until the day of Judgement, when all of his children will be one people under him.

What changed in God's view towards humanity.

Well Jesus Christ is pretty major.

Why, based on principles from God, were 18th century Christians figuring out that slavery was immoral yet, also based on instruction from God, 6th century BC Israelites weren't?

Well, God had purchased Israel. Israel were Gods Servants, which is why an Israelite could do the work of a slave, but not be the property of his master. the nations were not of God. So God allowed them to be slaves for his people. In doing this however, they were still given rights and legal recourse. It wasn't that they were just bits of meat. Similarly, God has now purchased the nations also through his Son. We are slaves to him, and he is our master. If now, all of the nations have been purchased by God, how can it be justified by the Christian to dominate his brother?

philologos

stevejazzx wrote: »

I never knew that Paul was 'inspired' by the holy spirit to lay down the laws fro slavery? how did that work? And if we're assuming that all morality works through some kind of relativism along the lines of what Jakkass suggested then whats was the context for slavery and, as Mark Hammil's asks, why was Jesus not the Saviour for them? More relativism?

Me? Moral relativism? You must have taken me out of context.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

I never knew that Paul was 'inspired' by the holy spirit to lay down the laws fro slavery? how did that work?

Paul didn't lay down any laws for slavery. If you think that then you've been listening to too many trolls.

Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to give advice to those who lived in a pretty messed up society. He told them how a Christian should behave in certain circumstances, including in respect to the slavery that was part and parcel of the Empire in which they lived. Some Christians were slaves and others were 'masters' (possibly slave-owners, but quite possibly referring to overseers who, while slaves themselves, also had supervision over other slaves). He encouraged them to keep a good Christian attitude even in horrible circumstances.

And if we're assuming that all morality works through some kind of relativism along the lines of what Jakkass suggested then whats was the context for slavery and, as Mark Hammil's asks, why was Jesus not the Saviour for them? More relativism?

The slaves to whom Paul was writing had already discovered Jesus to be their Saviour - so I'm not quite sure what you're asking here?

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Dodging no issue whatsoever. I've already stated that an act may be moral in one context but not in another. Who or what created those contexts is neither here nor there. It is not immoral to shout 'Fire!' if you are on your own in the forest. It is immoral to do so in a crowded theatre.

God's morality is absolute in that it comes to us from an objective source, not from our own imaginations. However, what is moral for one person is not necessarily moral for another. For example, it is moral for me to restrain my child from going to a place I don't wish her to go. However, if you similarly restrained her then that would be immoral.

Now, where is this contradiction of which you speak?

Wow, completely missed my point, read what I said again:

Mark Hamill wrote:

Assuming you still believe in human free will, then you must believe those contexts are largely decided by other humans. This means that gods absolute morality, which is supposed to be ever lasting and never changing, is also dependent on the actions of humans, as if humans start doing things different, contexts are changed and things that once where moral, no longer are. How can you not see the contradiction?

In order words, why would the absolute objective morality of a god change depending on the contexts that arise because of mans actions? Morality changing due to context, makes it subjective to context, not absolute or objective, hence the glaringly obvious contradiction.
Merely giving examples of morality changing due to context only strengthens my point.

Mark Hamill

PDN wrote: »

Paul didn't lay down any laws for slavery. If you think that then you've been listening to too many trolls.

Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to give advice to those who lived in a pretty messed up society. He told them how a Christian should behave in certain circumstances, including in respect to the slavery that was part and parcel of the Empire in which they lived. Some Christians were slaves and others were 'masters' (possibly slave-owners, but quite possibly referring to overseers who, while slaves themselves, also had supervision over other slaves). He encouraged them to keep a good Christian attitude even in horrible circumstances.

Couldn't he have just told everyone "no slaves" though and made the society better? Was a particular reason christians needed slaves or needed to be slaves? And why, if slavery is immoral according to gods morality, would Paul tell people who were slaves just to be better slaves? Kind of like telling rape victims they should be better rape victims, no?

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Wow, completely missed my point, read what I said again:

In order words, why would the absolute objective morality of a god change depending on the contexts that arise because of mans actions? Morality changing due to context, makes it subjective to context, not absolute or objective, hence the glaringly obvious contradiction.
Merely giving examples of morality changing due to context only strengthens my point.

I think you've created a bit of a strawman as regards the word 'absolute'.

When Christians say that they believe in an absolute morality they generally refer to its objective nature (ie it's origin in God, not in our relativistic feelings). They are not saying that an action always has the same morality in every situation.

For example, telling a lie would not be equally immoral in the two following situations.
a) You lie about your income in order to cheat on your income tax so you can buy more porno mags.
b) An SS soldier asks, "Have you any Jews hidden in your house?"

However, we would still describe such morality as being absolute in that it is based on weighing up objective principles such as being honest and causing the least amount of harm to the smallest number of people. The morality of telling a lie in either situation does not change because you've had a bad day, or because you were raised as a Scientologist instead of as a Baptist.

PDN

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Couldn't he have just told everyone "no slaves" though and made the society better? Was a particular reason christians needed slaves or needed to be slaves? And why, if slavery is immoral according to gods morality, would Paul tell people who were slaves just to be better slaves? Kind of like telling rape victims they should be better rape victims, no?

How would that have made society better? Do you really think the Roman world thought so highly of Paul that they would have abandoned slavery because one of those troublesome Christians demanded it?

That would simply enrage the slaveowners into torturing their Christian slaves into abandoning such a subversive religion.

For example, I regularly visit Christians in China who are beaten, imprisoned and tortured because of their refusal to deny Christ. I think that the way that atheistic regime treats them is inhuman - but proclaiming that from the rooftops will not change anything, nor would it help my friends. Instead I try to encourage them to live good Christian lives, even under such a horrible system. That IMHO is what Paul did.

Paul told the slaves how to behave in a way that would minimise their suffering (bolshie slaves tended to get flogged) and would give them favour with their masters. It would also give them the maximum opportunity to share their Gospel message with other slaves, and even their masters, so eventually bringing change.

Rome was not built in a day. And it was not brought down by some loudmouth telling it how wrong it was.

stevejazzx

Jakkass wrote: »

Me? Moral relativism? You must have taken me out of context.

Oh sorry it was Jimitime in post 171 previous page to which I was referring..it's the 'J' thing that got me!

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

Oh sorry it was Jimitime in post 171 previous page to which I was referring..it's the 'J' thing that got me!

Like Jesus and Jehovah?

stevejazzx

PDN wrote: »

Paul didn't lay down any laws for slavery. If you think that then you've been listening to too many trolls.

Well I think it was Sam and Mark that brought it into the conversation? I could be wrong on that..neither of those guys I would consider as trolls, in fact quite the opposite?

pdn wrote:

Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to give advice to those who lived in a pretty messed up society. He told them how a Christian should behave in certain circumstances, including in respect to the slavery that was part and parcel of the Empire in which they lived. Some Christians were slaves and others were 'masters' (possibly slave-owners, but quite possibly referring to overseers who, while slaves themselves, also had supervision over other slaves). He encouraged them to keep a good Christian attitude even in horrible circumstances.

It seems to me from the Epesians (sorry sp?) quote that he was outlining a slaves position and outlook? I'm no expert but it does seem that interpretation can get you guys out of sticky situations.

The slaves to whom Paul was writing had already discovered Jesus to be their Saviour - so I'm not quite sure what you're asking here?

Yes but they weren't exactly freed by Jesus were they?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

What justice are you appealing to?

the "justice" that there is nothing a child can do that deserves death and no reason that a child would have to die, especially if you are onimpotent.

To put it simply to say a child should die is immoral and to say a child must die illogical.

What sense of justice are you appealing to when you say that it was moral for God to order the genocide of women and children as an act of revenge?

JimiTime wrote: »

God has given us both a moral compass, so to say that based on Gods statutes alone we get our morality is false.

To an atheist such as myself that rings totally hallow

Where was your "moral compass" when you actually read the Old Testament? Why was your moral compass not screaming out "This is not what a loving God would do"?

JimiTime wrote: »

A dishonest assesment, but The question is, 'What does God want'. He certainly does not want humans acting viciously and violently towards one another.

How can you possibly say that having read the Old Testament where God regularly orders the Hebrew armies to genocide neighbours as either revenge or to acquire their lands.

I imagine you are simply going to redefine "viciously and violently", ie if God orders you to go back to a conquered land and slay all the married womand and take for yourself all the virgins, that cannot be vicious or violent because God ordered it.

We get into pointless circular arguments. Again, where is this moral compass of yours when you read these passages? What part of you is thinking Yes that is how I imagine a moral just god would behave.

JimiTime wrote: »

Acts of wickedness were punishable. God gave Israel a mandate as to punishment.

Have you ever heard of the term "Cruel and Unusual punishment"?

JimiTime wrote: »

We are not Israel. We are not a geographical nation belonged to God. Gods spiritual nation Israel exists throughout every nation.

That doesn't answer the question. Why is God no longer acting through the armies of men, bringing destruction and genocide to the "wicked"

And the other part is why does the reason he is not doing that now not apply to 6,000 years ago.

To simply say We are not Israel isn't an answer. Why treat Israel one way and Christians today a totally different way?

JimiTime wrote: »

Well, God had purchased Israel. Israel were Gods Servants, which is why an Israelite could do the work of a slave, but not be the property of his master. the nations were not of God. So God allowed them to be slaves for his people. In doing this however, they were still given rights and legal recourse. It wasn't that they were just bits of meat. Similarly, God has now purchased the nations also through his Son. We are slaves to him, and he is our master. If now, all of the nations have been purchased by God, how can it be justified by the Christian to dominate his brother?

I'm asking why did God do this and you are simply repeating what he did. The question is why?

Why purchase Israel, use their armies to kill wicked people, then stop, then tell Christians not to be violent towards their enemies.

It all seems rather inconsistent.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to give advice to those who lived in a pretty messed up society. He told them how a Christian should behave in certain circumstances, including in respect to the slavery that was part and parcel of the Empire in which they lived.

What

So was prostitution, adultry, fornication, gambling, idolatry and homosexuality. Strangely Paul was able to out right condemn these things without too much fuss or concern about fitting into Roman society.

Paul is giving advice on the good way to be a slave and the good way to be a master. The some what inescapable implication of this is of course that there is actually a good way to be a slave and a good way to be a master.

There isn't a good way to sleep with a prostitute, and Paul is happy to condemn that out right. There isn't a good way to have an affair, or have homosexual sex, or to worship a pagan god and Paul had no issue condemning these actions completely, unconcerned that this may greatly effect life for Christians in the Roman Empire and afterwards.

Apparently some moral principles are more important that fitting in with society. Slavery, not so much

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

What

So was prostitution, adultry, fornication, gambling, idolatry and homosexuality. Strangely Paul was able to out right condemn these things without too much fuss or concern about fitting into Roman society.

You are (probably deliberately) missing the point that these were things that Christians had a choice whether to be involved in or not. You could live in Roman society and choose to abstain from them. If you were a slave, however, you had no choice whether to abstain from being a slave.

However, as regards idolatry there is a very interesting discussion about eating food sacrificed to idols in Romans 14:14-23 and 1 Corinthians 8:4-13. For those in many trades, they could not work without being a member of a guild, and membership of the guild involved attendance at meals where meat was served that had been sacrificed to idols. Paul's advice was that it was not sinful to eat such meat (with a proviso not to do anything that would cause a weaker Christian to stumble). So Paul recognises that some contact with idolatry is unavoidable, he gives advice as to how to cope with that, but that clearly does not equate to endorsing idolatry.

Paul is giving advice on the good way to be a slave and the good way to be a master. The some what inescapable implication of this is of course that there is actually a good way to be a slave and a good way to be a master

Yes, if you are trapped in slavery (either as the lowest worker or as an overseer) then there is a good and a bad way to behave in that situation.

I could draw a parallel with war. I am a pacifist and I oppose war. But as a pastor I give counsel to members of my church who are in the defence forces, including offices who serve with UN missions overseas. I advise them how to behave in their jobs, but that does not mean I am endorsing war.

I also pastor immigrants who work in the hospitality industry (bars & hotels). Having seen the damage alcohol abuse causes to families I hate the drinks trade with a passion. But I give pastoral advice to these members of my church who are employed in that trade. That is not to say I endorse the drinks trade.

There isn't a good way to sleep with a prostitute, and Paul is happy to condemn that out right. There isn't a good way to have an affair, or have homosexual sex, or to worship a pagan god and Paul had no issue condemning these actions completely, unconcerned that this may greatly effect life for Christians in the Roman Empire and afterwards.

Again, these are things that we can change in our personal behaviour. However, a slave cannot choose to abstain from being a slave.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think Paul was a secret abolitionist, but neither did he endorse slavery. It obviously did not loom large in his list of priorities. It was pretty much a 'given' at that time in history.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Main point: they were to killed because they were God's enemies;
Yes I'm aware of the reason the Hebrews gave for doing all this, but why was God killing his enemies 4,000 (happy now! ) years before Jesus,

Still wrong - the conquest was c.1200BC.

yet when Jesus came God wasn't killing his enemies,

Who told you that?
Acts 12:21 So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. 22 And the people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” 23 Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.

and quite the opposite God was encouraging people to not fight with his or their enemies, but to turn the other cheek?

This is the age of grace - a time God has set for the salvation of the Gentiles as well as the Jews. An act of mercy does not mean one has rejected the principle of justice. And this age ends in Justice - Judgement Day, where the wicked are eternally punished. Justice & Mercy both belong to God.

What purpose did killing his enemies achieve in Moses' time apart from giving the Israelites more land and wealth, something that Christians are told by God to not be concerned with as rewards awaits in the after life?

Simple. It preserved the nation so that the Messiah would come; and it provided a picture of God's ultimate judgement on sinners.

For an eternal deity that all seems some what inconsistent. I'm not just rabble rising, all that does seem genuinely inconsistent. Why would God treat the Isrealites significantly different to treating Christians, and threat the enemies of the Israelites significantly differently to the enemies of Christians?

It is only a matter of timing and purpose - mercy and justice flowing from one source.

The message and priorities seem to have changed significantly from Moses' time to Jesus' time

Yes, in the outward sense you are right. The Law had an immediate purpose different from the Gospel - but ultimately both were to the same end, the salvation of the elect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
the land was to be taken because God gave it to Israel as their home
Yes but why would the god of the New Testament do this?

As I said - to preserve the nation for Messiah and to picture the eternal reality. God has punishment is store for the unrepentant, and glory in the new heaven and new earth for the repentant.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You are (probably deliberately) missing the point that these were things that Christians had a choice whether to be involved in or not. You could live in Roman society and choose to abstain from them. If you were a slave, however, you had no choice whether to abstain from being a slave.

Nonsense. You did, as a slave have the choice not to obey your master with ...

"sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

Why, literally in God's name, would a slave be expected by Paul to obey his master as he would obey Jesus, his saviour?

Why if Paul, inspired by God, considered slavery to be against the wishes of God, as William Wilberforce later did, would he tell slaves to obey with sincerity of heart.

If you are a slave, or prisoner, or hostage, you are told to obey the commands of your masters because you risk punishment if you don't. No one will think less of a captured solider who does what he is told. No one thinks less of a hostage who followers his takers orders.

But equally no one in their right mind would suggest to them that they should try and really mean it when they do do all this.

The argument that Paul was simply trying to help these slaves get through a difficult and immoral position of servitude makes little sense in the context of what he is saying, which is surprising for you PDN since you normally pride yourself in trying to honestly determine what the author meant.

PDN wrote: »

So Paul recognises that some contact with idolatry is unavoidable, he gives advice as to how to cope with that, but that clearly does not equate to endorsing idolatry.

And equally he does not tell them to obey these idols as they would Jesus. This is exactly my point, if Paul disagreed with slavery and viewed it as bad, as he does idoltry, he would have instructed the slaves as he instructed the guild members, to do it but not to mean it

But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.

Instead is specifically tells the slaves to mean it, to obey sincerely because God rewards good deeds?

PDN wrote: »

I advise them how to behave in their jobs, but that does not mean I am endorsing war.

When you meet political prisoners in China do you instruct them to obey the prison guards and the political system that has imprisoned them not simply to avoid further persecution but with sincerity of heart? Do you tell them to give up spiritual resistance and submit sincerely to their imprisonment?

And would you tell the Chinese government to equally treat these political prisoners well, or would you tell them to let them go

robindch

PDN wrote: »

How would that have made society better? Do you really think the Roman world thought so highly of Paul that they would have abandoned slavery because one of those troublesome Christians demanded it?

No, but it's interesting to note that once christianity assumed control of the Empire in the early fourth century, the christian polities left slavery fester in one form or another for a further fourteen centuries. That was until people like agitators like Tom Paine who took high-flown Enlightenment principles, brought them down to earth, then promoted them publicly and successfully, including the idea that humans had inalienable rights that could not be denied. After that, slavery was on its way out in large sections of the world within a generation.

PDN wrote: »

Paul told the slaves how to behave in a way that would minimise their suffering (bolshie slaves tended to get flogged) [...] And it was not brought down by some loudmouth telling it how wrong it was.

Well, ultimately, Tom Paine was a loudmouth. And while Paine's authorship of the famous "African Slavery in America" tract is in doubt, there is no doubt at all that slavery was abolished by persistent political agitation.

But even though that's what ultimately worked, Jesus didn't have to loudmouth his way around the topic. I'm quite sure he was smart enough to be able to have done, say, a Mahatma Ghandi and advocated some form of passive resistance. With the number of slaves fluctuating over time and place within the Empire from something around 25% to well over 50%, passive resistance could have been highly effective (quite apart any supernatural powers that he could have deployed, or caused to be deployed, to resolve the problem).

Or even if he didn't want to make any changes, why didn't he even say something -- anything -- against it? Even a single parable would have been useful about what was probably the greatest, and most persistent, social divide and source of human misery that had ever existed. Telling people to accept it was no more sympathetic in first century Palestine, than it was in nineteenth century London.

And finally, much more basically, and from the theological, Euthryphic, point of view, there's little value in declaring an absolute moral standard, but then not tell anybody what it is.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Nonsense. You did, as a slave have the choice not to obey your master

"with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."

No, you didn't. As a slave in the Roman Empire you had the choice to obey with sincerity of heart, or you had the choice to obey grudgingly. For a slave to disobey, unless they were looking for a fast track to a crucifixion, was not an option.

Paul was telling slaves to take the better if two options. It was a natural extension of Christ's instruction to Jews to walk the extra mile when mistreated by the representative of an occupying power.

Why, literally in God's name, would a slave be expected by Paul to obey his master as he would obey Jesus, his saviour?

Because such a slave, rather than a sullen resentful slave, was more likely to witness effectively to his master about the Gospel of Christ.

Why if Paul, inspired by God, considered slavery to be against the wishes of God, as William Wilberforce later did, would he tell slaves to obey with sincerity of heart

Because that was the best course of action for the slave. Wilberforce didn't go around encouraging slaves to stage insurrections, you know.

If you are a slave, or prisoner, or hostage, you are told to obey the commands of your masters because you risk punishment if you don't. No one will think less of a captured solider who does what he is told. No one thinks less of a hostage who followers his takers orders.

But equally no one in their right mind would suggest to them that they should try and really mean it when they do do all this.

So an atheist doesn't understand the Christian concept of loving your enemies and turning the other cheek. Now there's a surprise!

The argument that Paul was simply trying to help these slaves get through a difficult and immoral position of servitude makes little sense in the context of what he is saying, which is surprising for you PDN since you normally pride yourself in trying to honestly determine what the author meant.

I never made that argument. He was teaching them to live as followers of Christ whatever the circumstances. That is because I make a genuine attempt to honestly determine what the author meant.

And equally he does not tell them to obey these idols as they would Jesus. This is exactly my point, if Paul disagreed with slavery and viewed it as bad, as he does idoltry, he would have instructed the slaves as he instructed the guild members, to do it but not to mean it

But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat.

Instead is specifically tells the slaves to mean it, to obey sincerely because God rewards good deeds?

Slaves were indeed 'not to mean it'. They were not to view themselves as inferior to their masters, for Paul was clear that in Christ all were equal. Also masters were to view slaves as their brothers, not as inferior objects. That, in Ancient Rome, was a revolutionary idea indeed. It was one of the things that made Christianity so attractive to slaves. Indeed, that was one of the critics levelled at the early Church - that it was full of slaves.

When you meet political prisoners in China do you instruct them to obey the prison guards and the political system that has imprisoned them not simply to avoid further persecution but with sincerity of heart? Do you tell them to give up spiritual resistance and submit sincerely to their imprisonment?

No, I don't. And the reason is because I don't believe I have the right to say such things as I haven't suffered even a fraction of what they have for the cause of Christ. Quite honestly I don't think I'm worthy to even clean their boots.

Paul had earned the right to speak in such a way because he had suffered so much for the Gospel.

And would you tell the Chinese government to equally treat these political prisoners well, or would you tell them to let them go

Neither I nor Paul have been in any kind of position where we would expect a government to pay heed to our sermonising.

However, I have had the opportunity to speak to several people who work on the other side of the wire, so to speak. One was a prison guard, another a high ranking officer in the Red Army, and another was a judge (and part time executioner). I asked them to do their jobs well while treating inmates and suspects well, and to avoid the kind of cruelty that dehumanises others. They promised me that they would do so.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Or even if he didn't want to make any changes, why didn't he even say something -- anything -- against it? Even a single parable would have been useful about what was probably the greatest, and most persistent, social divide and source of human misery that had ever existed. Telling people to accept it was no more sympathetic in first century Palestine, than it was in nineteenth century London.

Jesus did more than say a parable about it. He paid with His life so that they could be freed, truly freed. Not from shackles made by human hands but shackles which bind the very soul of man. His was a spirutal mission. Like I said in an ealrier post, most of the world just cannot understand spiritual things, they are follishness to the natural man. Anyway listen to what Jesus reads out in a synagogue one day:

"And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Luke 4:16-21

He was quoting Isaiah 61 verse 1.

So, if that scripture was fulfilled in their ears then why was there still slavery? Because He was talking about a slavery that all mankind is in. Slavery to sin, the world and the devil. Why would He be bothered to condemn slavery of the body when His primary reason for coming was to set at liberty those souls who are enslaved by an even more potent and terrible task master? The slavery of the very soul of man.

Even the Jews had trouble with this teaching in the NT:

"To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?" John 8:31-33

They, like most people today could not understand the slavery Jesus was talking about. So to everyone who is more concerned with slavery of the body to institutions of mankind's making then go ahead and do what Jesus did for the captives He came to free. Give your life for them if you are so set against their slavery.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, you didn't. As a slave in the Roman Empire you had the choice to obey with sincerity of heart, or you had the choice to obey grudgingly. For a slave to disobey, unless they were looking for a fast track to a crucifixion, was not an option.

That is my point, they did not have to willingly and sincerely obey, yet Paul tells them that is the good thing to do. He is endorsing slavery, telling the slave that it is the proper thing to do, to follow their master as they would follow Jesus.

PDN wrote: »

Paul was telling slaves to take the better if two options. It was a natural extension of Christ's instruction to Jews to walk the extra mile when mistreated by the representative of an occupying power.

How is it the better option? The slaves would he happier if they just tried to find being a slave to be a good thing? I wonder if WIlberforce had taken such an attitude what would have happened.

PDN wrote: »

Because such a slave, rather than a sullen resentful slave, was more likely to witness effectively to his master about the Gospel of Christ.

Well yes, and the Master is bound to think this Gospel of Christ is a great thing since it provides him with obedient sincere slaves.

What exactly do you think this achieves?

PDN wrote: »

Because that was the best course of action for the slave. Wilberforce didn't go around encouraging slaves to stage insurrections, you know.

He didn't go around encouraging them to be happily obedient either.

PDN wrote: »

So an atheist doesn't understand the Christian concept of loving your enemies and turning the other cheek. Now there's a surprise!

No, an atheist doesn't understand the Christian concept of teaching slaves to happily accept being slaves and serving their masters sincerely

But then this atheist doesn't think slavery is a good idea to start with, unlike Christians apparently.

PDN wrote: »

I never made that argument. He was teaching them to live as followers of Christ whatever the circumstances.

No he wasn't PDN, now you are re-writing the Bible. He was teaching them to be obedient to their masters out of duty to God.

PDN wrote: »

Slaves were indeed 'not to mean it'.

Perhaps in the PDN dictionary where "sincere" means "not to mean it" ...

PDN wrote: »

They were not to view themselves as inferior to their masters, for Paul was clear that in Christ all were equal.

PDN wrote: »

Also masters were to view slaves as their brothers, not as inferior objects.

They were to view them as slaves!

What ever about Paul talking to slaves themselves he could have easily instructed slave masters to free their slaves. He didn't, in fact he specifically didn't, he simply told them to treat them well, confirming and condoning slavery in the same breath just like the Old Testament.

Don't sleep with prostitutes, don't worship false gods, treat your slaves well.

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't. And the reason is because I don't believe I have the right to say such things as I haven't suffered even a fraction of what they have for the cause of Christ. Quite honestly I don't think I'm worthy to even clean their boots.

What?

So if you had suffered more you would tell them to sincerely embrace their slavery?

I wonder if that is what Terry Waite would tell them...

PDN wrote: »

Neither I nor Paul have been in any kind of position where we would expect a government to pay heed to our sermonising.

That isn't what I asked you.

If you met the Chinese government and they were listening to you (as Christians slave owners, then and in the future, were listening to Paul) would you tell the Chinese to let these prisoners go, or would you tell them to treat them well?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Jesus did more than say a parable about it. He paid with His life so that they could be freed, truly freed. Not from shackles made by human hands but shackles which bind the very soul of man. His was a spirutal mission.

Yeah, I think it would been pretty easy for him to do both there Soul Winner.

It is always amusing when you guys make excuses for an omnipotent deity ...