Advancement of religion -- charitable or not?

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

Its possible as in any other organisation. I just don't agree with your assumption that this is necessarily true of all churches.

This is why many churches are run on a democratic basis, even if there are some flaws to this approach it is better than everything being done behind closed doors.

Many churches run on a basis that each and every member over 18 gets to democratically vote on its dogma and leaders and organisational issues?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm going to use the term "churches" as opposed to "the church" to save confusion.

A church may do this. What is the problem in your logic is that you are going from a church to all churches.

The problem is that once a church gets big enough, it can claim merit for its legislative suggestions based on its supposed representation of the ideals of all of its members.

Jakkass wrote: »

As I've said already, I have no problem with people putting forward legislation on the basis of their faith as long as merit is the criteria which determines what is good law and what is bad in the chamber. As I've said if there is something worthy in Torah law that can be demonstrated to be abundant in merit I don't see why we shouldn't explore it. Same with laws inspired by other religion and culture.

I never disagreed with this. But they do not try to bring into laws things that they think are good for society, the bring into law things that are good for themselves, wither in terms of trying to define the "family" to exclude lifestyles they dont agree with or to protect themselves from any legal prosecution. Any church, once it gains enough power, will try to do this, its how it protects itself and ensures an even bigger base of growth.

philologos

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Many churches run on a basis that each and every member over 18 gets to democratically vote on its dogma and leaders and organisational issues?

It has always been this way as far as it has gone in my church. People can go to the election of the new parish committee, people can go to both Diocesan and General Synods as well. As far as I'm aware the Methodist and Presbyterian churches also do this.

This is why the Sydney Diocese of Australia differs very much from other dioceses in the Episcopal Church of USA (which would be more Anglo-Catholic) or even other dioceses in Australia for example, or the Anglican Church in Canada. Most of the changes made in Sydney if you look at the Wikipedia page were implemented democratically.

It is because of the largely autonomous nature of church governance that there is difference of opinion within Anglicanism on a lot of things even between churches.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

The problem is that once a church gets big enough, it can claim merit for its legislative suggestions based on its supposed representation of the ideals of all of its members.

This is why most people would advocate a Government which sees society as a pluralism.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I never disagreed with this. But they do not try to bring into laws things that they think are good for society, the bring into law things that are good for themselves, wither in terms of trying to define the "family" to exclude lifestyles they dont agree with or to protect themselves from any legal prosecution. Any church, once it gains enough power, will try to do this, its how it protects itself and ensures an even bigger base of growth.

I disagree here. I think a lot of legislation that can be brought in motivated by faith can be good for society, and out of the genuine belief that it is good for society. See the history in Britain for example of Christians arguing for the abolition of slavery, the improvement of rights for prisoners, and the improvement of working conditions in the Industrial Revolution. All abound in merit, and all were motivated by Christian faith.

Simply put your argument is too black and white. I think the freedom of speech and conscience should allow people to argue such views in the chamber.

Mark Hamill

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

It has always been this way as far as it has gone in my church. People can go to the election of the new parish committee, people can go to both Diocesan and General Synods as well. As far as I'm aware the Methodist and Presbyterian churches also do this.

I didn't ask if your church did, I asked if many did (out of the 30000 or so sects).

Jakkass wrote: »

This is why the Sydney Diocese of Australia differs very much from other dioceses in the Episcopal Church of USA (which would be more Anglo-Catholic) or even other dioceses in Australia for example, or the Anglican Church in Canada. Most of the changes made in Sydney if you look at the Wikipedia page were implemented democratically.

But, as you say, the australian diocese is different from the american version. Those that do employ democracy are in the minority.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree here. I think a lot of legislation that can be brought in motivated by faith can be good for society, and out of the genuine belief that it is good for society. See the history in Britain for example of Christians arguing for the abolition of slavery, the improvement of rights for prisoners, and the improvement of working conditions in the Industrial Revolution. All abound in merit, and all were motivated by Christian faith.

Simply put your argument is too black and white. I think the freedom of speech and conscience should allow people to argue such views in the chamber.

The problem with your argument is that you still continue to strawman me. I am not talking about individuals acting by themselves under religious motivation, like you I think their suggestions should be examined under its own merits regardless of where it came from. I am talking about churches, as organisations acting to get their particular dogma protected or enacted as law under the assumed authority of their deity. Its actually inevitable, even a church which honestly believes in what it does and isn't selfishly out for power, will eventually have the problem where its "god" given laws will conflict on some level with the the law of the land. And under that conflict, which laws do you think the church will argue and fight for? The man made "materialistic" laws, or the "god given" laws?

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

See the history in Britain for example of Christians arguing for the abolition of slavery, the improvement of rights for prisoners, and the improvement of working conditions in the Industrial Revolution. All abound in merit, and all were motivated by Christian faith.

After one thousand four hundred years of opposing such improvements, I'm inclined to view with some cynicism, the very late interest of christians in views that were traditionally held by liberal, non-religious people and promulgated during the Enlightenment which took a dim view of religion, the power of religion and the people who followed religion.

.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

After one thousand four hundred years of opposing such improvements, I'm inclined to view with some cynicism, the very late interest of christians in views that were traditionally held by liberal, non-religious people and promulgated during the Enlightenment which took a dim view of religion, the power of religion and the people who followed religion..

One can be as cynical as one likes, but ultimately for these men it was on the basis of Christianity rather than anything else. Indeed, it was primarily Christians in Britain who supported the overturning of slavery rather than the non-religious.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

One can be as cynical as one likes, but ultimately for these men it was on the basis of Christianity rather than anything else. Indeed, it was primarily Christians in Britain who supported the overturning of slavery rather than the non-religious.

What are you basing "rather than anything else" on?

Can you point out specifically what Christian teaching or doctrine someone like Wilberforce appealed to to convince others that slavery was wrong, that would have been irrelevant if Wilberforce was Muslim, Hindu, Taoist etc

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

One can be as cynical as one likes, but ultimately for these men it was on the basis of Christianity rather than anything else.

If christianity realyl was the motivating force, then -- ignoring the fact that the Enlightenment directly encouraged the freedom of slaves, via the Rights of Man -- why did it take 1,400 years for christians to realize that christianity didn't support slavery?

I'd have thought that something this basic would have been noticed before.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you point out specifically what Christian teaching or doctrine someone like Wilberforce appealed to to convince others that slavery was wrong, that would have been irrelevant if Wilberforce was Muslim, Hindu, Taoist etc

You can look up his writings on this I presume. Personally I can see what Scripture would lead me to a similar conclusion.

I could see very clearly in respect to both Christ setting us free from the slavery of sin and Paul's insistence that it is better for a man to be free than to be under slavery that it would be desirable for people not to be in such a situation.

I suspect that colonial slavery and the horrific conditions that came with it resulted out of the selfishness of man rather than out of anything to do with Christianity.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

If christianity realyl was the motivating force, then -- ignoring the fact that the Enlightenment directly encouraged the freedom of slaves, via the Rights of Man -- why did it take 1,400 years for christians to realize that christianity didn't support slavery?

See what I've just said.

The fact remains that it was due to the campaign of Christians that slavery actually became abolished. If it weren't would it have been done by non-believers in a similar manner at that period of time? I'm leaning towards no.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You can look up his writings on this I presume. Personally I can see what Scripture would lead me to a similar conclusion.

Is it actually scripture or just a fuzzy idea that Christianity teaches you to value human life and dignity (itself debatable), which is what pretty much every other religion philosophy does as well?

If so that could explain why slavery lasted hundreds of years under largely Christian governments.

Jakkass wrote: »

I could see very clearly in respect to both Christ setting us free from the slavery of sin and Paul's insistence that it is better for a man to be free than to be under slavery that it would be desirable for people not to be in such a situation.

So no then, there is no specific Christian doctrine or teaching outlining that slavery is wrong, it requires an interpretation of other Christian passages within the context of slavery with a notion already held that slavery itself is immoral.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm leaning towards no.

Why? Again there is no moral teaching in Christianity that outlines that slavery is wrong. It requires a belief that slavery is wrong matched up to the general Christian idea that people shouldn't do wrong, to get to abolistion.

robindch

I'm non-religious and believe that 'advancement of religion' IS genuinely charitable

Jakkass wrote: »

The fact remains that it was due to the campaign of Christians that slavery actually became abolished.

There were non-christians involved too and the motivation clearly came from the Enlightenment idea of the innate Rights of Man, rather than any specific christian doctrine. Obviously enough, since there isn't one

If you're going to claim that christians did it because they were christian, then you're going to have to explain why christians failed to do it during the previous 1,400 years of christianity's moral occupation of England.

Jakkass wrote: »

If it weren't would it have been done by non-believers in a similar manner at that period of time? I'm leaning towards no.

As for why non-religious didn't do it -- well, how easy easy it to be non-religious, when you bear in mind that by the time that Wilberforce and company were starting their march, it was only around a hundred years since the last guy, Thomas Aikenhead, had been executed for the crime of failing to give religion the respect that religious people felt religion was due?

philologos

robindch wrote: »

If you're going to claim that christians did it because they were christian, then you're going to have to explain why christians failed to do it during the previous 1,400 years of christianity's moral occupation of England.

I've already explained it. Most people were really more interested in their own selfish interests rather than the greater good. This might also explain why it took William Wilberforce etc so long to get the legislation passed.

I would also suspect a high degree of nominalism was involved in Christianity in general when it was seen to be the majoritarian belief.

Its very clear in Wilberforce's writings that he did it due to his Christian faith.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

So no then, there is no specific Christian doctrine or teaching outlining that slavery is wrong, it requires an interpretation of other Christian passages within the context of slavery with a notion already held that slavery itself is immoral.

There are passages which suggest that it is best for mankind to be free. This is what Paul and Jesus advocated in respect to sin, its logical conclusion is that man should be free to serve God in every single way.

Where Paul talks about current slaves it is in encouraging people to serve God in difficult circumstances as I would see it. Paul goes as far as suggesting that slaves are equal to free men in Christ something that was not said before this point.

Christianity inherently leads towards the position that Wilberforce advocated. In understanding that mankind are all created in God's image we realise we all started off in the same place, and after death the same thing will happen to each and every one of us in that we will be before God at judgement. All that happens is that we are placed unfairly in differing positions based on geography, social class, etc etc.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

There are passages which suggest that it is best for mankind to be free.

There are also passages that suggest that what is best for man kind is to be subservient in this life, and focus on the next.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is what Paul and Jesus advocated in respect to sin, its logical conclusion is that man should be free to serve God in every single way.

Again that is merely one, rather out there, interpretation and is based on a far more general idea that someone should be free than any specific Christian doctrine against slavery. Someone could use such an interpretation to argue against anything that they saw going against freedoms, you could argue that it is wrong for people to pay income tax or observe speed limits because they should be free to serve God in every single way, if you had already decided these things were wrong.

Again these are not pointers to the abolition of slavery, merely justifications after the fact, when the person has already decided that slavery is morally wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

Where Paul talks about current slaves it is in encouraging people to serve God in difficult circumstances as I would see it. Paul goes as far as suggesting that slaves are equal to free men in Christ something that was not said before this point.

Which is far short of calling for the abolition of slavery. In his letter to Philemon he sends the slave back to his owner, who he refers to as a good Christian, merely hoping that one day the owner will set the slave free. This falls far short of the righteous condemnation Paul reserves for Christians who partake in sexual immorality.

It is rather obvious from this letter that Paul adheres to the notion of legalized slavery. He doesn't say to the Corinthians I hope that you may one day turn away from homosexual prostitution.

Jakkass wrote: »

All that happens is that we are placed unfairly in differing positions based on geography, social class, etc etc.

To which Jesus nor Paul had much issue with, instead telling those to suffered like this that your suffering was holy and focus on the next life.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

There are passages which suggest that it is best for mankind to be free.

There are also passages that suggest that what is best for man kind is to be subservient in this life, and focus on the next.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is what Paul and Jesus advocated in respect to sin, its logical conclusion is that man should be free to serve God in every single way.

Again that is merely one, rather out there, interpretation and is based on a far more general idea that someone should be free than any specific Christian doctrine against slavery. Someone could use such an interpretation to argue against anything that they saw going against freedoms, you could argue that it is wrong for people to pay income tax or observe speed limits because they should be free to serve God in every single way, if you had already decided these things were wrong.

Again these are not pointers to the abolition of slavery, merely justifications after the fact, when the person has already decided that slavery is morally wrong.

Jakkass wrote: »

Where Paul talks about current slaves it is in encouraging people to serve God in difficult circumstances as I would see it. Paul goes as far as suggesting that slaves are equal to free men in Christ something that was not said before this point.

Which is far short of calling for the abolition of slavery. In his letter to Philemon he sends the slave back to his owner, who he refers to as a good Christian, merely hoping that one day the owner will set the slave free. This falls far short of the righteous condemnation Paul reserves for Christians who partake in sexual immorality.

It is rather obvious from this letter that Paul adheres to the notion of legalized slavery. He doesn't say to the Corinthians I hope that you may one day turn away from homosexual prostitution.

Jakkass wrote: »

All that happens is that we are placed unfairly in differing positions based on geography, social class, etc etc.

To which Jesus nor Paul had much issue with, instead telling those to suffered like this that your suffering was holy and focus on the next life.

on the other hand if you were doing something sinful then they certainly let you know about it

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

There are also passages that suggest that what is best for man kind is to endure trials in this life, and see the big picture of life.

Fixed your post. I think Christianity is equally about the here and now and what we can do in it. In fact it is what decisions we make in this life which will secure our eternal destiny.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that is merely one, rather out there, interpretation and is based on a far more general idea that someone should be free than any specific Christian doctrine against slavery. Someone could use such an interpretation to argue against anything that they saw going against freedoms, you could argue that it is wrong for people to pay income tax or observe speed limits because they should be free to serve God in every single way, if you had already decided these things were wrong.

Paul himself noted in 1 Corinthians 7:21 -

Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.

It is quite clear that Christianity encourages freedom to serve God.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again these are not pointers to the abolition of slavery, merely justifications after the fact, when the person has already decided that slavery is morally wrong.

Not at all. They form the logical conclusion that one should oppose colonial slavery as Wilberforce / John Newton etc did when others stood idly by and were silent.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is far short of calling for the abolition of slavery. In his letter to Philemon he sends the slave back to his owner, who he refers to as a good Christian, merely hoping that one day the owner will set the slave free. This falls far short of the righteous condemnation Paul reserves for Christians who partake in sexual immorality.

Philemon isn't a good example to use. T'is one of my favourite letters from Paul precisely because of this.

Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.

To claim what you have done about Philemon is dishonest.

It is rather obvious from this letter that Paul adheres to the notion of legalized slavery. He doesn't say to the Corinthians I hope that you may one day turn away from homosexual prostitution.

Wicknight wrote: »

To which Jesus nor Paul had much issue with, instead telling those to suffered like this that your suffering was holy and focus on the next life.

Samaritans and Jesus? Syro-Phonecian woman and Jesus? Jesus at the well with the woman in Samaria? Jesus healing lepers? I think this is a perfect example for how I can see the world around me. Be willing to engage with those who are marginalised in any shape or form, and be willing to engage with those with whom I or others may disagree in a positive manner.

Jesus bridged barriers that nobody else would bridge. All of these things were considered detestable by the elite in the culture that he lived in. Indeed the reason why He died according to Paul was to break barriers.

Ephesians 2:14-16 wrote:

For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

Galatians 3:28 wrote:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus./quote]

In respect to sin but can be applied also to this context:

Galatians 5:1 wrote:

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

As for Paul and Peter saying to slaves that they should obey their master this is effectively so that God might be glorified through their work and that their masters might wonder why this is the case. It is also about dealing with difficult situations in the best way that we can. However, both see it as being undesirable.

When Paul writes to one of the first Gentile converts in the church Titus he writes:

Titus 2:9-10 wrote:

Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Saviour attractive.

Paul and indeed Peter although regarding slavery as undesirable do see that there is an opportunity here for the Gospel that Christians should take. Indeed, I'm glad these passages are in the Bible because I can apply the good example that Paul and Peter give from this context into any work context even if it isn't referred to as slavery.

It is intriguing that you and robindch are silent on prisoners rights and the changes made during the Industrial Revolution due to activism by Christians in Britain.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Fixed your post. I think Christianity is equally about the here and now and what we can do in it. In fact it is what decisions we make in this life which will secure our eternal destiny.

Well you no doubt don't accept that Christianity was original a religion waiting for the immediate apocalypse, so we probably won't agree there. A reading of the Bible without the necessity to believe it is all true would leave someone with the conclusion that issues such as slavery were not of that much relevance as being a slave or slave owner were not considered a sin and thus not crucial to repentance, where as things like sexual immorality were high on the list.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is quite clear that Christianity encourages freedom to serve God.

Again, like the letter I already mentioned, Paul works in the regulation and context of slavery, rather than anywhere condemning or railing against it. It informs people to work to their freedom not because of the inherent immorality of slavery, but simply so they can focus on their salvation.

This is like saying that if working as a graphic artist is getting in the way of attending church you should give up being a graphic artist. That is a far cry from saying being a graphic artist is immoral.

Again contrast this against the things that Paul specifically singles out for condemnation. No where does Paul say that if visiting male prostitutes is getting in the way of worshipping God maybe you should cut back on the male prostitutes. He condemns it out right, devoting letters specifically warning fellow Christians against it. No where does he do the same with slavery, instead he works within the laws and regulations of slavery, merely recommending that if slavery is distracting from focusing on God they should try and do their best to get away from it.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. They form the logical conclusion that one should oppose colonial slavery as Wilberforce / John Newton etc did when others stood idly by and were silent.

Again see the comment on being a graphic artist to see why this isn't the case.

Jakkass wrote: »

Philemon isn't a good example to use. T'is one of my favourite letters from Paul precisely because of this.

To claim what you have done about Philemon is dishonest.

Not at all. To claim that Philemon is Paul denouncing slavery as immoral as you have done is the dishonest claim. No where does Paul denounce it as immoral. He hopes that the slave will be freed by the master's choice simply so that the slave can focus on being a better Christian.

Again this is like saying I hope you give up being a graphic artist and come to church more. To assert that such a comment is claiming being a graphic artist is immoral would be dishonest, as would claiming that what Paul really means here is that slavery is immoral is equally dishonest.

Once again, contrast this with the things Paul really denounces as immoral. Paul, given his positions against sin and immorality, would have little problem informing Philemon (who is referred to as a good Christian though he keeps slaves) that he should cease slavery instantly and completely, as Paul informed the Corientians who engaged in sexual immorality.

Paul's attitude to slavery is much more similar to his attitude to marriage. He informs people that it is better not to marry, to devote oneself completely to God, but if one must it they should marry rather than commit sin through fornication.

You and other Christians have stated when presented with the charge that Paul is anti-marriage, that Paul is not saying that marriage is immoral, he is merely saying that it is better, in his view, not to marry and devote oneself completely to God though he knows people will not all be able or want to do this.

This is far more in line with his views of slavery than say sexual immorality. Paul never states anywhere that slavery is immoral, the only thing he ever states is that it is better for a slave such as the one he met in prison to be free to engage in helping the church than to remain a slave.

In Philemon this seems largely motivated by the slaves interest in Christianity and desire to be part of the Christian church. Its like saying to someone that your son is a great painter, please if you wish let him go to art school rather than to the technical college you had picked out for him.

It is doubtful that Paul would have made any such appeal for the slaves freedom if he wasn't Christian, ie doubtful he would have made an appeal simply because slavery itself is immoral.

Again Jakkass you are clutching at straws here if you think Paul is going to demonstrate that slavery is actually considered immoral in the eyes of God or the early Christians.

Ironically you are doing what you complain others do, inserting a context into the Bible simply to fit an external policial or moral point. You think slavery is wrong, so you are trying to find where in the Bible your view is represented, going so far as to invent the argument if necessary.

This is why few of us on this forum take Christians seriously when they say that the Bible opened their eyes to morality and what God wants from us. It didn't at all, people simply inject their own moral standards into the Bible, or what ever holy book they believe in, and then retro-actively find the passages or verses they think will support this.

Jakkass wrote: »

Samaritans and Jesus? Syro-Phonecian woman and Jesus? Jesus at the well with the woman in Samaria? Jesus healing lepers? I think this is a perfect example for how I can see the world around me.

God if he wanted to could heal the entire world. He doesn't, nor does the Bible expect him do. Jesus' miracles were done in public as parables for what awaits, not what Jesus will do for people in the here and now. I know that because that is what Christians tell me :pac:

Again as slavery was not a sin you won't find condemnation of it in the Bible. Jesus was not concerned with it, Paul was not concerned with it, unless it was preventing someone from having a more fulfilling relationship with God, in the same way that he preached celibacy over marriage.

Jakkass wrote: »

Galatians 3:28 wrote:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So is Jesus saying being a Jew is immoral? Of course not (at least few Christians would interpret it this way). So how do you get that being a slave is immoral from that?

Slavery was considered simply an Earthly construct, like being a graphic artist.

Jesus is saying that all Earthly constructs are equally meaningless in the eyes of God and God's judgement. Does matter if you are a king or a begger in the street. That doesn't mean Jesus is saying being a king is immoral, he isn't saying that any particular one is immoral or sinful.

Again you are grasping at straws here Jakkass.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for Paul and Peter saying to slaves that they should obey their master this is effectively so that God might be glorified through their work and that their masters might wonder why this is the case. It is also about dealing with difficult situations in the best way that we can. However, both see it as being undesirable.

Paul saw anything that disrupted a relationship with God as undesirable. He saw marriage as undesirable. He didn't see it as immoral or sinful.

It saved that classification for the things the Bible actually condemns outright, such as lying, murder, fornication, stealing etc.

No where on that list will you find owning or purchasing slaves.

Jakkass wrote: »

When Paul writes to one of the first Gentile converts in the church Titus he writes:

Yes. Be obedient to your master so that your master will realize he should be equally obedient to God. Again nothing about the immorality of slavery.

Paul doesn't tell the male prostitutes to be really good prostitutes so that the johns will see how great it is to take pride in your work.

Again throughout his writing Paul discusses what is desirable for a Christian, on a sliding scale that Paul himself recognizes is not attainable for everyone.

And in completely different context he discusses what is simply immoral sinful and wicked that no one should do.

Slavery is only ever discussed in the context of the the former, never in the later.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is intriguing that you and robindch are silent on prisoners rights and the changes made during the Industrial Revolution due to activism by Christians in Britain.

Yes it is intriguing that we are silent on a topic you haven't brought up yet

What would you like to discuss about prisoner rights in the Industrial Revolution? If there was a reference earlier in the thread I missed that.

Since we are finding it intriguing I too find it intriguing that the examples of how wonderful Chrisitan inspiration are seem to mostly be coming from the Enlightenment period, some 1,500 years after the formation of the Christian church

philologos

I'm going to cut this down as much as I possibly can.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not at all. To claim that Philemon is Paul denouncing slavery as immoral as you have done is the dishonest claim. No where does Paul denounce it as immoral. He hopes that the slave will be freed by the master's choice simply so that the slave can focus on being a better Christian.

I appear to have misread your original post, so this is my mistake. Your original post is here:

Which is far short of calling for the abolition of slavery. In his letter to Philemon he sends the slave back to his owner, who he refers to as a good Christian, merely hoping that one day the owner will set the slave free. This falls far short of the righteous condemnation Paul reserves for Christians who partake in sexual immorality.

Your right in that Paul is encouraging Christians to work and live within the context they happen to be in, but he clearly does regard slavery as being undesirable. There is reason to believe that when we were in a situation not only to seek our own freedom but to give all people freedom in Christ that we as Christians should pursue it which is exactly what Wilberforce did.

Paul is returning Onesimus to Philemon a worker in the church in Colossae in Asia Minor, and asking him due to his Christian conviction not to see him as a slave but as a brother in Christ. We see this when Paul closes the book of Colossians written to the church at Colossae:

Wicknight wrote: »

You and other Christians have stated when presented with the charge that Paul is anti-marriage, that Paul is not saying that marriage is immoral, he is merely saying that it is better, in his view, not to marry and devote oneself completely to God though he knows people will not all be able or want to do this.

Paul doesn't state explicitly that slavery in the Roman Empire is immoral, rather he encourages different behaviour surrounding slavery:

Colossians 4:1 wrote:

Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Wicknight wrote: »

In Philemon this seems largely motivated by the slaves interest in Christianity and desire to be part of the Christian church. Its like saying to someone that your son is a great painter, please if you wish let him go to art school rather than to the technical college you had picked out for him.

Not necessarily. Remember that Paul and Peter have both said that there is an opportunity for evangelism in slavery. Indeed, Paul worked as well as serving in the church.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is doubtful that Paul would have made any such appeal for the slaves freedom if he wasn't Christian, ie doubtful he would have made an appeal simply because slavery itself is immoral.

He mentioned it a great deal in the general as well as in the specific case of Philemon.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again Jakkass you are clutching at straws here if you think Paul is going to demonstrate that slavery is actually considered immoral in the eyes of God or the early Christians.

I said that the logical conclusion of the Christian faith is to advocate freedom rather than to be enslaved, this is wholly true both from Jesus, Paul and Peter's perspective.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ironically you are doing what you complain others do, inserting a context into the Bible simply to fit an external policial or moral point. You think slavery is wrong, so you are trying to find where in the Bible your view is represented, going so far as to invent the argument if necessary.

Not at all. I'm reading both Jesus' words and Paul's words and I'm seeing that they point very strongly to one conclusion, one which Wilberforce took up because of his Christian convictions. Just reading his writings will tell you as much. Although I would argue that Wilberforce was also led about as much by the horrific conditions that the slaves were subjected to which Paul would have also balked at if you read what he has to say to masters in both Colossians and Ephesians. As I mentioned a few years ago even if you compare this type of slavery to the type of slavery that existed in the Hebrew society there is simply no comparison.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is why few of us on this forum take Christians seriously when they say that the Bible opened their eyes to morality and what God wants from us. It didn't at all, people simply inject their own moral standards into the Bible, or what ever holy book they believe in, and then retro-actively find the passages or verses they think will support this.

I guess I actually don't believe that I am actually doing this.

Wicknight wrote: »

God if he wanted to could heal the entire world. He doesn't, nor does the Bible expect him do. Jesus' miracles were done in public as parables for what awaits, not what Jesus will do for people in the here and now. I know that because that is what Christians tell me :pac:

Jesus' miracles teach us a lot about his understanding of demographics. It isn't just in the miracle that we find the understanding. It is in the context, the person and the way in which he handled every situation he got into.

To say that this is anything short of exemplary would be surprising to say the least that Jesus crossed lines and broke barriers.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again as slavery was not a sin you won't find condemnation of it in the Bible. Jesus was not concerned with it, Paul was not concerned with it, unless it was preventing someone from having a more fulfilling relationship with God, in the same way that he preached celibacy over marriage.

Nor will you describe full on advocacy of the practice. You will find what Paul and Peter found disturbing about the practice of slavery that existed in the Roman Empire though.

Wicknight wrote: »

So is Jesus saying being a Jew is immoral? Of course not (at least few Christians would interpret it this way). So how do you get that being a slave is immoral from that?

No and this is Paul. Rather the statement backs up the equality of all people male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free. It is this understanding that we are all created equal under God that was also a huge motivating factor for Wilberforce.

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus is saying that all Earthly constructs are equally meaningless in the eyes of God and God's judgement. Does matter if you are a king or a begger in the street. That doesn't mean Jesus is saying being a king is immoral, he isn't saying that any particular one is immoral or sinful.

And being a Christian means seeking to stand up for God's standards here on earth. The role of Christianity in social change has been immense both in recent centuries and even the early centuries.

Wicknight wrote: »

It saved that classification for the things the Bible actually condemns outright, such as lying, murder, fornication, stealing etc.

It actually speaks out pretty heavily against the oppression of individuals in any shape or form also.

Wicknight wrote: »

Paul doesn't tell the male prostitutes to be really good prostitutes so that the johns will see how great it is to take pride in your work.

Sure, I think you know as well that it isn't immoral to be a slave that is just the situation that you find yourself in.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again throughout his writing Paul discusses what is desirable for a Christian, on a sliding scale that Paul himself recognizes is not attainable for everyone.

Desirable for a Christian == Desirable for all people.

Paul desires for all people to be Christians, therefore what is desirable for a Christian is also desirable for all humanity.

Surely you'll admit this much.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes it is intriguing that we are silent on a topic you haven't brought up yet

What would you like to discuss about prisoner rights in the Industrial Revolution? If there was a reference earlier in the thread I missed that.

Indeed you did miss it:

Jakkass wrote:

See the history in Britain for example of Christians arguing for the abolition of slavery, the improvement of rights for prisoners, and the improvement of working conditions in the Industrial Revolution. All abound in merit, and all were motivated by Christian faith.

All this stuff happened while others were silent about this in society.

Wicknight wrote: »

Since we are finding it intriguing I too find it intriguing that the examples of how wonderful Chrisitan inspiration are seem to mostly be coming from the Enlightenment period, some 1,500 years after the formation of the Christian church

T'is nonsense though as all advocates have given clear Christian basis for everything that they did.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Your right in that Paul is encouraging Christians to work and live within the context they happen to be in, but he clearly does regard slavery as being undesirable.

I'm not disputing that he might find it undesireable. He finds marriage undesirable as well. The unjustified leap in logic is to some how assume therefore that Christianity teaches that slavery is immoral. It doesn't, it no more teaches that than it teaches marriage is immoral.

Corinthians 7
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.”

Does any Christian think that marriage or sex with a woman is immoral? No, of course not because they do not view Paul simply saying that it is better to do it this way as saying that to do it the other way is sinful.

I've no doubt that Paul wished that slaves were free to devote their entire time to worship of God instead of servants to their masters, in the same way that I have no doubt that Paul wished that all men were free to devote their entire time to worship of God instead of to their wives.

But again this falls far short of Paul condemning slavery as an immoral practice. In fact he does the opposite, to tells people to work within the slavery system and attempt to emerge from it, just as a slave owner himself may tell a slave to work hard and he might free him.

Just because he desires for (some) slaves to be free does not mean he views the system as immoral or sinful. Which is probably why generations after him didn't either.

Jakkass wrote: »

Paul is returning Onesimus to Philemon a worker in the church in Colossae in Asia Minor, and asking him due to his Christian conviction not to see him as a slave but as a brother in Christ. We see this when Paul closes the book of Colossians written to the church at Colossae:

Colossians 4 does not call for the abolition of slavery, it calls for the fair treatment of slaves.

Again I've no issue with Paul wishing that slaves be treated well, or urging that their masters free those who wish to devote themselves to God. But again that falls far short of calling for abolition, or condemning the practice as immoral.

Again look at how Paul treats marriage. He wishes that men do not marry so as to devote themselves to God fully, but he stops far short of condemning marriage itself as wrong. Contrast that with how he deals with the practices that he does actually consider morally wrong and sinful, such as fornication, theft, prostitution etc.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. I'm reading both Jesus' words and Paul's words and I'm seeing that they point very strongly to one conclusion, one which Wilberforce took up because of his Christian convictions.

I know. But you are doing that because you are retroactively assuming that slavery is something God would be against, and then interpreting any slight disagreement or displeasure with the slave system as out right condemnation of it as immoral.

You don't do that with marriage, despite Paul actually stating that it is good for men not to have sexual relations with women, because you know as I do that simply stating a preference for a system to be one way does not mean that the person is automatically condemning as immoral the practice if it is done another way.

Jakkass wrote: »

I guess I actually don't believe that I am actually doing this.

Well only you can know if you are being honest with yourself. From where I'm sitting you seem to be doing this clear as the light of day.

Reading of the books is pretty clear. There is nothing in the Bible that condemns slavery because the Bible was written by people who did not think that slavery itself was an immoral practice, particularly given its long tradition in Judaism. This was not unusual, slavery would have been seen as normal and something that had long been practiced by the Jews as part of God sanctioned laws. Why would they think it immoral?

When they do think something is immoral it is clear as the nose on your face, they scream it from the rafters. Sexual immoral, murder, adultery, fornication, even homosexuality, it is difficult to make a case that there is any ambiguity about the feelings the authors had about these practices. When people do they are shot down by Christians such as yourself for reading context into the books that simply isn't there.

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus' miracles teach us a lot about his understanding of demographics. It isn't just in the miracle that we find the understanding. It is in the context, the person and the way in which he handled every situation he got into.

To say that this is anything short of exemplary would be surprising to say the least that Jesus crossed lines and broke barriers.

I'm not denying he crossed lines and broke barriers. But again when he did this it was clear as the nose on your face. When he says he is against divorce he is clear, when he speaks of loving your enemies he is clear. But he is silent on slavery except to use slavery in his parables as a way of illustrating points to the fellow Hebrews gathered to listen to him, Jews who would have been well used to slavery being regulated by the very laws given to them by God that Jesus now claimed to speak for.

Jakkass wrote: »

Nor will you describe full on advocacy of the practice. You will find what Paul and Peter found disturbing about the practice of slavery that existed in the Roman Empire though.

I'm not denying that either. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that all men are created equal, owned and used slaves on his plantations. Though may, similar to you, try to make out that he was secretly against the practice these is little evidence to support this. Does that mean he didn't care about the welfare of slaves? No, he seemed to care a lot but he still thought the practice was justified and moral, if done correctly.

Paul would have been coming from a Jewish tradition of attempting to legislate slavery in a "fair" manner, with laws and acceptable practices. Remember this was God given law, not something people just made up over the years. Paul would have seen slavery within this context, a practice that should be fair and regulated and which all men should strive to get out of, but only through the system itself, not to through the abolition of the system.

Jakkass wrote: »

No and this is Paul. Rather the statement backs up the equality of all people male or female, Jew or Greek, slave or free. It is this understanding that we are all created equal under God that was also a huge motivating factor for Wilberforce.

Possibly but a conclusion that we are all equal in the eyes of God isn't used as a justification for the abolishment of class in the Bible, let alone slavery.

Again you are reading into things that simply are not there. The Hebrew system regulated a class structure that included both forced slavery and indebted slavery. That did not remove the notion that all are equal before God, did it?

Jakkass wrote: »

And being a Christian means seeking to stand up for God's standards here on earth.

"God's standards" though tend to be what ever the believer wants them to be.

Remember in the old law God's standard was to regular slavery.

Jakkass wrote: »

It actually speaks out pretty heavily against the oppression of individuals in any shape or form also.

It does. But how oppression is defined is up for debate.

Again I've no issue with Paul wish to see slaves treated "fairly" by the standards of the day. But that does not include abolition of slavery as an immoral evil.

Jakkass wrote: »

Desirable for a Christian == Desirable for all people.

See Paul's commends on marriage.

Jakkass wrote: »

All this stuff happened while others were silent about this in society.

It certainly did, the vast majority of whom were fellow Christians.

Jakkass wrote: »

T'is nonsense though as all advocates have given clear Christian basis for everything that they did.

Of course they did, they were Christian and most likely believed, as you do, that they were acting for God.

The point is that they could have picked anything and claimed it was for God. Do you think that when the British and Spanish invaded the Americas and genocided the natives "for God" that they were being motivated specifically by Christian doctrine and dogma?

If someone says Christianity teaches homosexual is wrong, therefore I believe it is wrong I'm happy to say that this is due to Christian teaching.

But when someone simply does what they think is right with no connection to teachings of Christianity and then claims it was done for the glory of God, that is not something Christianity can take credit for.

And yes, before you say it, if someone goes off and murders 20 women and then says he was doing because of Christian teaching I would equally say that it is unfair blame Christianity for this as there is clearly nothing in Christian teaching that suggest killing women is what God wants.

philologos

Just realised I left out a passage. This is what I was referring to at the end of Colossians in terms of Onesimus.

Colossians 4:7-9 wrote:

Tychicus will tell you all the news about me. He is a dear brother, a faithful minister and fellow servant in the Lord. I am sending him to you for the express purpose that you may know about our circumstances and that he may encourage your hearts. He is coming with Onesimus, our faithful and dear brother, who is one of you. They will tell you everything that is happening here.