Eating Pork is a Sin

[Binary_Digit]

I think the Bible has ONE truth, which we should strive to understand. If we have different ideas of what the Bible teaches, one of us is wrong.

Or both of us are wrong. I think that's reasonable. But lots of things are still left up to opinion, like whether or not a particular Biblical lesson is the best guidance for a somewhat related kind of problem, or if a different lesson should apply instead. For an example of that, many Catholics believe since we are born into sin, infants should be baptised as soon as possible to protect them. Protestants disagree, saying baptism should be a person's choice only when they are old enough to understand the covenant they are making with God. Only God knows who'se right.

I'm sorry about this. While I was writing my post, Sebastian was writing his. I never saw it until after I posted. I never meant for you to have to repeat yourself.

Apology accepted.

Are you familiar with the ancient adoption custom? Men would have their grandchildren and great-grandchildren "on their knee" and those children would be counted as that man's offspring. Consider Jacob in Genesis. His son Joseph's two son's Mannasah and Ephriam were placed on Jacob's knee...and after they were considered as Jacob's sons. They recieved equal inheritance as Jacob's other sons when the Israelites claimed the Promised Land. Depending on how long a man lived, his "children" could number several hundred by the time he placed all his kids and grandkids on his knee!

But that is not the Biblical context in which the people are mentioned. They are quite clearly listed as grandfather -> father -> son. They are not listed as grandfather -> father and then later on grandfather -> son. Here's another way to look at it:

Luke says this:
a - b - c - d - e

Genesis and Chronicles say this:
a - b - d - e

Now, if b was the biological father of d, and was also the adoptive father of c, that would mean d is either the son of c, or d is the son of b, but not both. It cannot be both, because the context is a begat b, b begat c, c begat d, etc.

If d is the son of c, Luke is right and the Chronicles are wrong. If d is the son of b, Luke is wrong and the Chronicles are right. Either way, one of the two is wrong.

Those two books also have different calendars. You do know that Kings and Chronicles documents Israel history from the Northern and Southern Kingdom? They would each have their own names for things, their own way of keeping track of time. Like northern and southern newspapers during our Civil War would have different accounts of the same event.

You missed a key fact. Kings mentions both Uzziah and Azariah. If we can safely assume that the whole book if Kings was written at roughly the same time, then it's irrelavent that Kings was written at a different time than the Chronicles.

No, God does not lie. And I personally don't believe He dictated the Bible. I believe he moved on men, and His message came through their personality.

Sorry, I guess dictate was the wrong term to use. I think "approve of" is a better one. I don't think God approves of 1/3 of the drivel people have put in the Bible, under the dilusion of being "inspired" by Him to justify doing despicable things to other people.

How do you know those are man-made laws? How do you know that part wasn't dictated?

I don't know. I'm pretty sure nobody does. For me, it's a common sense judgment call based on everything I know about everything relavent to the subject. Much of it hinges on the premise that some mistakes exist in the Bible, therefore every law is questionable and every author is suspicious. As for figuring out which laws are bogus, I think Sebastiandreams said it best a few pages ago - all of God's laws have a good purpose, or a good reason why it's a law.

Using that criteria, it's easy to eliminate the ones I've already mentioned (racism, slavery, etc). I also eliminate teachings against homosexuality within a loving, monogamous relationship as being man-made garbage. I eliminate passages that basically say "God told us to go to war". I don't believe God sent the Flood because of man's corruptness, or any other reason for that matter. He just let it happen, much like the Tsunami earlier this year, because He has a "hands-off" approach on the world. That also means I don't believe God performs miracles in response to prayer.

But most of it is good advice for getting along in peace with our fellow men. Just not all of it.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Gah! One other point I missed:

To say the Bible is inerrant is to say that God supports (or at least supported) racism, sexism, and slavery.

If one of my kids wants to go to the store to buy candy, and I say "Stay on the sidewalk" that does not mean I support my kid's desire to buy candy. Positive commands regarding certain conducts should not be construed as support of that conduct.

Sebastiandreams and I went over this at the bottom of page 3. If you think the Bible only regulates slavery, and therefore doesn't support it, consider these:

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." - Ephisians 6:5-9

"All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles." - 1 Timothy 6:1-2

It sure looks like supporting slavery to me. Heck it even glorifies it, telling slaves that servitude to their masters is doing a duty to Christ himself. What a crock of....!!!

 

[Montalban]

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." - Ephisians 6:5-9

"All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against. Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles." - 1 Timothy 6:1-2

It sure looks like supporting slavery to me. Heck it even glorifies it, telling slaves that servitude to their masters is doing a duty to Christ himself.

That's akin to saying Jesus supported the worship of a pagan deity, because he said render unto Caesar, what is Caesar’s; and the state religion supported the worship of the emperor. That is because there is a sense of doing one’s bit in keeping peace within the world. However, one can not also forget what God’s wish is (Christians recognise that there is often a gap between what ‘is’ and what ‘should be’) St. Paul says that in reality there are no slaves or free. Which is the ‘ideal’.

Christians were the driving force behind the abolition of slavery. Wilberforce (in Britain), Garrison (in the USA) fought against it. Also note that although they were against slavery they didn’t advocate the armed rebellion of slaves, so by your reasoning because they might have promoted slaves adhering to the law, they were supporting slavery... which is what the Bible is saying here (note again it doesn't say that this is 'ideal')

Whilst these men applied to higher principles (or ‘ideals’) liberals such as Locke and Hume supported the status quo completely; arguing that no one had the right to tell someone else how to live his life – and therefore no one had the right to preach against slavery.

 

[Binary_Digit]

That's akin to saying Jesus supported the worship of a pagan deity, because he said render unto Caesar, what is Caesar’s; and the state religion supported the worship of the emperor.

I disagree with that analogy, it's not akin to that at all. Telling slaves to be obedient to their masters is more like telling women to be submissive for their rapist. And then to have people claiming that rape is not supported or encouraged. There are hundreds of laws in the Bible prohibiting this and that behavior. But the only guidance the Bible has to offer regarding slavery doesn't prohibit it, instead it says things like this:

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few." - Luke 12:47-48

This is God's will? :shock: I can only hope this is another case where Luke was talking out his posterior. Otherwise God is a major jerk, and we can probably agree that is not true.

St. Paul says that in reality there are no slaves or free.

Tell that to any slave who'se ever lived and they'll promptly label you a cracked nut. Besides, that is not what Paul said. Check it again, "whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free." Slaves and free will be rewarded for their good deeds. Nowhere does it say what you're claiming it says.

Christians were the driving force behind the abolition of slavery.

No, the Civil War was the driving force behind the abolition of slavery. The Civil War didn't even start over the abolishment of slavery, Lincoln made that decision in the middle of the war. There were Christians opposed to slavery, but they were not the driving force. There were also Christians in the south who opposed abolition. And they used the above verses to justify their God-given right to own other human beings like cattle.

 

[Montalban]

I disagree with that analogy, it's not akin to that at all. Telling slaves to be obedient to their masters is more like telling women to be submissive for their rapist. And then to have people claiming that rape is not supported or encouraged.

That is a completely false counter-analogy. The nature of a slave-owner was not by itself the same as a rapist as an employer of contracted workers is not a murderer. Note also that the nature of slavery then was different to more recent experience. It was not 'racist', in that all races could be subject. And it was not 'permanent' in that slaves could earn their freedom.

Jesus said to render unto Ceasar what is Caesars. It could be argued that the very nature of the Roman Empire was oppressive; they wiped out many peoples. However you would suppose that Jesus was supporting this oppression.

Likewise Gandhi called for restrained respect for the British Empire which itself was known for the odd wipe-out.

There are hundreds of laws in the Bible prohibiting this and that behavior. But the only guidance the Bible has to offer regarding slavery doesn't prohibit it, instead it says things like this

I see where you are in error: You are mistaken if you believe that the Bible is the sum of Chrisitanity.

This then is akin to me looking at the US constitution, and arguing from it how I believe American SOCIETY is today. The Orthodox Church of which I am part does not believe that your 'scripture alone' approach to judging was ever valid, and we're the oldest church.

Tell that to any slave who'se ever lived and they'll promptly label you a cracked nut. Besides, that is not what Paul said. Check it again, "whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free." Slaves and free will be rewarded for their good deeds. Nowhere does it say what you're claiming it says.

That is exactly what I said it says. There is NO difference in 'reward' between free and slave BECAUSE the nature of service does not matter to salvation. There is no slave or free to God.

No, the Civil War was the driving force behind the abolition of slavery. The Civil War didn't even start over the abolishment of slavery, Lincoln made that decision in the middle of the war. There were Christians opposed to slavery, but they were not the driving force. There were also Christians in the south who opposed abolition. And they used the above verses to justify their God-given right to own other human beings like cattle.

You're kidding. The Civil War just 'happened' and in the midst of it, Lincoln pulls an ideal out of nowhere and decides to free the slaves!

 

[Montalban]

"Primitive Christianity did not attack slavery directly; but it acted as though slavery did not exist."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

No, the Civil War was the driving force behind the abolition of slavery. The Civil War didn't even start over the abolishment of slavery, Lincoln made that decision in the middle of the war. There were Christians opposed to slavery, but they were not the driving force. There were also Christians in the south who opposed abolition. And they used the above verses to justify their God-given right to own other human beings like cattle.

It was Christians in the UK and the USA who were the main force behind slavery; where men such as Wesley and Wilberforce (in the UK) and Garrison (in the USA) arguing on the idea of all men are created in God's image, that slavery was against the laws of God!

”Prior to the 1861-1865 War, there were a number of Christian abolitionists (Rev. Fee, Cheever, Weld, Rankin, Foster, Goodell, Pillsbury, etc.) opposing slavery. Nowadays, their Bible-based reasons for doing so are generally unknown.”
http://members.tripod.com/medicolegal/keytom.htm#p115

It was Christians who saw beyond the limits of the law, to man's intrinsic worth (their Godness) that had it changed.

See also http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

And

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2004/1015.asp



“Inferiority was assumed by Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, and even John Locke ...(who) did not hesitate to defend slavery in his draft of the Fundamental Constitution of Carolina.”, Carroll, V & Shiflett, D “Christianity on Trial: Arguments against anti-religious Bigotry”, p31.

The atheist liberal; Locke who helped draft a constitution too, established slavery. “ he wrote the “Fundamental Constitutions for the Government of Carolina” in 1669”... “Black chattel slavery received particular sanction and protection under Locke's law: “

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/locke.html

Specifically, one rule says:

“CX: Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his Negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever.”
(http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/locke.html
“...echoed in Liberal John Locke's defence of slavery as “Property.”[18] Quesnay's and Mandeville doctrine of “let the Satan whom Smith esteems as the knowing Director of nature, fix the dice,” is echoed by Adam Smith's 1759 The Theory of the Moral Sentiments, as in his anti-American tract of 1776, The Wealth of Nations”
http://www.larouchepub.com/lar/2003...lieve_know.html
In other words, governments, churches etc, had no right to impose laws. Let nature sought things out. If some people are slaves, then it is natural for them to be so.

 

[Rev.]

I disagree with that analogy, it's not akin to that at all. Telling slaves to be obedient to their masters is more like telling women to be submissive for their rapist. And then to have people claiming that rape is not supported or encouraged. There are hundreds of laws in the Bible prohibiting this and that behavior. But the only guidance the Bible has to offer regarding slavery doesn't prohibit it, instead it says things like this:

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few." - Luke 12:47-48

This is God's will? :shock: I can only hope this is another case where Luke was talking out his posterior. Otherwise God is a major jerk, and we can probably agree that is not true.

In these verses you've quoted, Luke is quoting Jesus. So it's not Luke who is talking out his posterior...

And you still fail to allow for the difference between God's will and commentary on what exists. For Jesus to say, "A servant who knew his master's will and disobeyed will be punished more than a servant who did NOT know his master's will and disobeyed" is not a promise OR a threat...it's a statement of how things are. Jesus used situations from real life to teach Kingdom Principles to his disciples.

St. Paul says that in reality there are no slaves or free.

Tell that to any slave who'se ever lived and they'll promptly label you a cracked nut. Besides, that is not what Paul said. Check it again, "whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free." Slaves and free will be rewarded for their good deeds. Nowhere does it say what you're claiming it says.

Yes it does.

Galatians 3:26-28 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

 

[Binary_Digit]

Telling slaves to be obedient to their masters is more like telling women to be submissive for their rapist. And then to have people claiming that rape is not supported or encouraged.

That is a completely false counter-analogy. The nature of a slave-owner was not by itself the same as a rapist as an employer of contracted workers is not a murderer.

Slaves are NOT employees, and slavery is NOT contract labor. You are whitewashing and sugar coating it by comparing slavery to consentual employment. What BS! Slavery is forced labor, against your will. For years on end you don't get a day off. Your children are sold away and you never see them again (if you're even allowed to have any). You are beaten violently if you don't serve your master's every beck and call. Slaves are invariably treated as livestock, not people. Your comparing this to being an employee is ridiculous!

Note also that the nature of slavery then was different to more recent experience. It was not 'racist', in that all races could be subject. And it was not 'permanent' in that slaves could earn their freedom.

So what? Enemy prisoners of war were usually sold into slavery, it wasn't racist, so it's all ok now? Excuse me, but it was still human beings owning each other like animals. It was still forced labor. It was still slavery, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.

Jesus said to render unto Ceasar what is Caesars. It could be argued that the very nature of the Roman Empire was oppressive; they wiped out many peoples. However you would suppose that Jesus was supporting this oppression.

Jesus never once told Caesar to be oppressive. It's indirect logic to conclude that Jesus supported oppression because he told people to pay their taxes. That logic would also say Jesus supported prostitution because he let Mary Magdeline go without punishment. On the other hand, slave masters are specifically told to be oppressive, and slaves are specifically told to be the submissive victims of their oppression. There is no indirect assumption to make, it's right there plain as day for anyone to see. See the difference now?

There are hundreds of laws in the Bible prohibiting this and that behavior. But the only guidance the Bible has to offer regarding slavery doesn't prohibit it, instead it says things like this

I see where you are in error: You are mistaken if you believe that the Bible is the sum of Chrisitanity.

I'm not bashing Christianity. I'm bashing the Bible. And you didn't address my point at all.

Besides, that is not what Paul said. Check it again, "whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free." Slaves and free will be rewarded for their good deeds. Nowhere does it say what you're claiming it says.

That is exactly what I said it says. There is NO difference in 'reward' between free and slave BECAUSE the nature of service does not matter to salvation. There is no slave or free to God.

There is no slave or free to God, therefore slavery doesn't even exist? Is that your logic? What is your point when you said, "St. Paul says that in reality there are no slaves or free." Are we still talking about reality? If the Bible said the sun doesn't exist, would you believe that too?

No, the Civil War was the driving force behind the abolition of slavery. The Civil War didn't even start over the abolishment of slavery, Lincoln made that decision in the middle of the war.

You're kidding. The Civil War just 'happened' and in the midst of it, Lincoln pulls an ideal out of nowhere and decides to free the slaves!

Nope, not kidding. The war started in 1861, but the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until 1863. The main argument between the north and south had to do with encroaching on one-another's lifestyles in the new states joining the Union. The Missouri Compromise divided the new state in half, one side slave-owning and one side not. Extension of slavery or prohibition into the Western states was also a heated argument. The war didn't start over keeping or abolishing slavery in the south. It started over allowing or abolishing slavery in the new states.

http://www.us-civilwar.com/

None of your links in post 44 dispute anything I said. I acknowledged that many Christians in the north supported emancipation. But again, they were not the "driving force" behind the abolishment of slavery.

In these verses you've quoted, Luke is quoting Jesus. So it's not Luke who is talking out his posterior...

If Luke misquoted Jesus then he IS talking out his ass. If Luke didn't misquote Jesus, then I have serious doubts in the divinity of Jesus.

And you still fail to allow for the difference between God's will and commentary on what exists.

Firstly, telling slaves to obey their masters, and telling masters to whip their slaves into submission, is NOT just commentary on what exists. It's ENCOURAGEMENT. It's JUSTIFICATION. Second, I addressed that already in another way. Hundreds, if not thousands, of laws and teachings that supposedly express God's will. A good number of human behaviors are prohibited throughout the Bible. Why not slavery?

Nowhere does it say what you're claiming it says.

Yes it does.

Galatians 3:26-28 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Okay, thanks. I was still looking in Ephisians.

But the point still stands, there may not be slavery in the afterlife, but that doesn't do any good for slaves who are still alive. Nor does saying "in reality there is no slave or free" make all slavery go away. That's basically sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich - if the Bible says it doesn't exist, then yay it doesn't exist! :roll:

 

[Rev.]

Slaves are NOT employees, and slavery is NOT contract labor. You are whitewashing and sugar coating it by comparing slavery to consentual employment. What BS! Slavery is forced labor, against your will. For years on end you don't get a day off. Your children are sold away and you never see them again (if you're even allowed to have any). You are beaten violently if you don't serve your master's every beck and call. Slaves are invariably treated as livestock, not people. Your comparing this to being an employee is ridiculous!

You are reading 1860's American slavery into the slavery of the ancient world. It's not the same.

1) Slavery is forced labor, against your will.
According to Lev 25:39-43, you can sell yourself into slavery, and you can buy yourself back out of it again. " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave. 40 He is to be treated as a hired worker or a temporary resident among you; he is to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then he and his children are to be released, and he will go back to his own clan and to the property of his forefathers. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. '

Leviticus 25:47-53 " 'If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, 48 he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him: 49 An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. 50 He and his buyer are to count the time from the year he sold himself up to the Year of Jubilee. The price for his release is to be based on the rate paid to a hired man for that number of years. 51 If many years remain, he must pay for his redemption a larger share of the price paid for him. 52 If only a few years remain until the Year of Jubilee, he is to compute that and pay for his redemption accordingly. 53 He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly."

2) For years on end you don't get a day off.
In Jewish households, everyone observes the Sabbath. Exodus 20:8-10 "Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates." Exodus 23:12 "Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed."

It is interesting to note that in the KJV of the Bible, the word "slave only appears one time in Jer 2:14. "Slaves" appears once in Rev 11:13. And "bondservant" only appears once as well...in Lev 25:39.

The words translated "servant" emphasize the service. A servant is one who serves another.

Jesus never once told Caesar to be oppressive. It's indirect logic to conclude that Jesus supported oppression because he told people to pay their taxes.

And it's indirect logic to say Jesus supported slavery because he told parables about servants. See the difference now?

On the other hand, slave masters are specifically told to be oppressive

May I have a reference please?

Firstly, telling slaves to obey their masters, and telling masters to whip their slaves into submission, is NOT just commentary on what exists. It's ENCOURAGEMENT. It's JUSTIFICATION. Second, I addressed that already in another way. Hundreds, if not thousands, of laws and teachings that supposedly express God's will. A good number of human behaviors are prohibited throughout the Bible. Why not slavery?

To the contrary, the Bible NEVER tells a master to whip his slave (or servant) into submission. Instead we have verses like:

Exodus 21:20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished"

Exodus 21:26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye.

Exodus 22:21 "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."

Lev 25:39 " 'If one of your countrymen becomes poor among you and sells himself to you, do not make him work as a slave."

Eph 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

But the point still stands, there may not be slavery in the afterlife, but that doesn't do any good for slaves who are still alive. Nor does saying "in reality there is no slave or free" make all slavery go away. That's basically sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich - if the Bible says it doesn't exist, then yay it doesn't exist! :roll:

The Bible doesn't say slavery doesn't exist, nor did I. But as to salvation, ALL have equal access, man, woman, Jew, Gentile, slave and free.

 

[Soviet_Guy]

Eating Pork Is No Sin. In Ancient Times A Pig's Hoove could've been easily invaded by parasites and cause sickness to whoever ate it. So there you go.

 

[Montalban]

Slaves are NOT employees, and slavery is NOT contract labor. You are whitewashing and sugar coating it by comparing slavery to consentual employment. What BS! Slavery is forced labor, against your will. For years on end you don't get a day off. Your children are sold away and you never see them again (if you're even allowed to have any). You are beaten violently if you don't serve your master's every beck and call. Slaves are invariably treated as livestock, not people. Your comparing this to being an employee is ridiculous!

I am not attempting to sugar-coat it. I am stating it as it was, not how you perceive it to be (by comparing it to slavery at the time of the civil war). I never said they were like employees, so thanks for the straw-man. It is true that slaves could be beaten by their masters; but it was no inherent in the master-slave relationship WHEREAS your analogy is of a rapist to a victim wherein the relationship is inherently one of violence of one party upon the other; hence it is a false analogy. Many slaves were well treated. Some, when freed, chose to continue to serve their former masters. Indeed I stress again, I full well acknowledge that there was a degree of power, but not inherently in the extent that you believe. People actually sold themselves into slavery in some circumstances.

Note also that the nature of slavery then was different to more recent experience. It was not 'racist', in that all races could be subject. And it was not 'permanent' in that slaves could earn their freedom.

So what? Enemy prisoners of war were usually sold into slavery, it wasn't racist, so it's all ok now? Excuse me, but it was still human beings owning each other like animals. It was still forced labor. It was still slavery, no matter how you try to sugar coat it.

It was not a state of permanence and it was not based on race. A black person could own a white person under Roman slavery. These very facts undermine your concept of what was inherent in that system.

Jesus said to render unto Ceasar what is Caesars. It could be argued that the very nature of the Roman Empire was oppressive; they wiped out many peoples. However you would suppose that Jesus was supporting this oppression.

Jesus never once told Caesar to be oppressive.

He didn’t have to. Caesar was. The Roman state had several wars against the Jews. They understood this. You’re living in the middle of a state that just recently took away your independence, that appointed a client king over part of your people; one who is not only immoral (see charges of John the Baptist), but who’s part of a dynasty that only within living memory butchered many infants. And there’s Jesus saying “Render unto Caesar”, it in fact shocked a great many Jews who had hoped that the Messiah would be one who would be a military commander.

It's indirect logic to conclude that Jesus supported oppression because he told people to pay their taxes.

Taxes that financed the occupation of His own country!

That logic would also say Jesus supported prostitution because he let Mary Magdeline go without punishment.

He told her to go and sin no more. He did recognise what she did was wrong, and therefore was not supporting it.

On the other hand, slave masters are specifically told to be oppressive, and slaves are specifically told to be the submissive victims of their oppression. There is no indirect assumption to make, it's right there plain as day for anyone to see. See the difference now?

Quote me the Bible text were it ‘specifically’ tells the masters to be oppressive.
Quote:

There are hundreds of laws in the Bible prohibiting this and that behavior. But the only guidance the Bible has to offer regarding slavery doesn't prohibit it, instead it says things like this

I see where you are in error: You are mistaken if you believe that the Bible is the sum of Chrisitanity.

I'm not bashing Christianity. I'm bashing the Bible. And you didn't address my point at all.

Yes it does, exactly. The text of the Bible is to be understood within the context of the Church. If you were to pick up the Australian Constitution, you would think that by its words we were headed by a Governor-General who has dictatorial military powers; because that is what is stated. It has never been understood as that way because the context of it is to be examined in the light of parliamentary democracy that we inherited by Britain. And this is what you’ve done with the Bible. Drawn it out and tried to look at it for what you think it says; interpreting it for yourself, and out of the context of the Church for which it was written.
Quote:

Besides, that is not what Paul said. Check it again, "whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free." Slaves and free will be rewarded for their good deeds. Nowhere does it say what you're claiming it says.

That is exactly what I said it says. There is NO difference in 'reward' between free and slave BECAUSE the nature of service does not matter to salvation. There is no slave or free to God.

There is no slave or free to God, therefore slavery doesn't even exist? Is that your logic? What is your point when you said, "St. Paul says that in reality there are no slaves or free." Are we still talking about reality? If the Bible said the sun doesn't exist, would you believe that too?

In the wrap-up, at the end of the day, when we face God, our social status will not matter.
Quote:

Quote:

No, the Civil War was the driving force behind the abolition of slavery. The Civil War didn't even start over the abolishment of slavery, Lincoln made that decision in the middle of the war.

You're kidding. The Civil War just 'happened' and in the midst of it, Lincoln pulls an ideal out of nowhere and decides to free the slaves!

Nope, not kidding. The war started in 1861, but the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't issued until 1863. The main argument between the north and south had to do with encroaching on one-another's lifestyles in the new states joining the Union. The Missouri Compromise divided the new state in half, one side slave-owning and one side not. Extension of slavery or prohibition into the Western states was also a heated argument. The war didn't start over keeping or abolishing slavery in the south. It started over allowing or abolishing slavery in the new states.
http://www.us-civilwar.com/

None of your links in post 44 dispute anything I said. I acknowledged that many Christians in the north supported emancipation. But again, they were not the "driving force" behind the abolishment of slavery.

What a really weak citation you’ve given me. So, somewhere on that very extensive site is something that supports your statement about the civil war? Why did Lincoln just decide, in the middle of a war, to end slavery? Was Lincoln a non-Christian? Did he act without regards to Christian influence?

I note to you didn’t address the fact that secularists were all in favour of maintaining the status quo.

 

[Binary_Digit]

You are reading 1860's American slavery into the slavery of the ancient world. It's not the same.

You have nothing to back that up except your own opinion. And too many history experts disagree with your opinion for me to find it credible.

"Probably over a quarter of the people living under ancient Roman rule were slaves - but they were kept so suppressed, there is little known about them."

"Some slaves were treated well, but there were few restraints on their owners' powers, and physical punishment and sexual abuse were common. Owners thought of their slaves as enemies. By definition slavery was a brutal, violent and dehumanising institution, where slaves were seen as akin to animals."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/slavery_02.shtml

1) Slavery is forced labor, against your will.
According to Lev 25:39-43, you can sell yourself into slavery, and you can buy yourself back out of it again.

Prisoners of war didn't sell themselves into slavery, they were forced. You're assuming they were all endentured servants, and that's simply not true at all. Endentured servitude is voluntary, slavery is forced labor against your will. Does the name Sparticus ring a bell? Many of them were forced to fight each other to death as gladiators.

2) For years on end you don't get a day off.
In Jewish households, everyone observes the Sabbath.

True, that's a good point.

By the way, have you noticed how willing I've been to recognize the good points you guys have made? Any chance I could get the same respect? I can't help but notice how the Cainan argument somehow got swept under the rug.

It is interesting to note that in the KJV of the Bible, the word "slave only appears one time in Jer 2:14. "Slaves" appears once in Rev 11:13. And "bondservant" only appears once as well...in Lev 25:39.

It's also interesting to note that the word "slave" appears almost 100 times in the New American Standard version. That point is irrelavent.

And it's indirect logic to say Jesus supported slavery because he told parables about servants. See the difference now?

No, I don't see the difference because they were NOT parables about servants. Luke 12:47-48 outlines how many beatings a slave should recieve for certain actions.

On the other hand, slave masters are specifically told to be oppressive.

May I have a reference please?

I already gave you one:

"And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few." - Luke 12:47-48

To the contrary, the Bible NEVER tells a master to whip his slave (or servant) into submission.

See above.

The Bible doesn't say slavery doesn't exist, nor did I.

Montalban said, "St. Paul says that in reality there are no slaves or free." I'm still trying to figure out what his point was.

I am not attempting to sugar-coat it. I am stating it as it was, not how you perceive it to be (by comparing it to slavery at the time of the civil war).

Like I said above, all evidence points to the contrary - slavery in ancient Rome was not all roses and honey like you're making it out to be. It's more accurate to compare slavery in ancient Rome to slavery in 1800's America, than it is to compare it to voluntary employment or endentured servitude. In at least one way, Roman slaves were even MORE oppressed than American slaves, because American slaves weren't forced to fight each other to death for people's entertainment.

I never said they were like employees, so thanks for the straw-man.

Sorry, but you said, "The nature of a slave-owner was not by itself the same as a rapist as an employer of contracted workers is not a murderer." Maybe I didn't understood your point, what did you mean by that?

It is true that slaves could be beaten by their masters; but it was no inherent in the master-slave relationship...

Yes it most certainly WAS inherent in the master-slave relationship. Or did you not read Luke 12 either?

Many slaves were well treated. Some, when freed, chose to continue to serve their former masters. Indeed I stress again, I full well acknowledge that there was a degree of power, but not inherently in the extent that you believe. People actually sold themselves into slavery in some circumstances.

Yes, many slaves were treated well. They were the lucky ones. Historians say they the were exceptions. And the fact that people sometimes sold themselves into endentured servitude does not imply that all slavery was humane. It says nothing to the conditions of PoW slaves.

It was not a state of permanence and it was not based on race. A black person could own a white person under Roman slavery. These very facts undermine your concept of what was inherent in that system.

What are you assuming about my concept of what was inherent in Roman slavery? The only way these facts could undermine what I'm saying is if I ever claimed that slavery was based on racism. I'm totally confused by what you're saying. The fact that there was endentured servitude does not undermine the fact that most slaves were NOT volunteers. The fact that a black man could own a white slave does NOT undermine the fact that the black master was allowed (by the Bible) to whip his white slave into submission, and this corporal punishment of slaves was a cultural norm, not the exception.

I'm not bashing Christianity. I'm bashing the Bible. And you didn't address my point at all.

Yes it does, exactly. The text of the Bible is to be understood within the context of the Church. If you were to pick up the Australian Constitution, you would think that by its words we were headed by a Governor-General who has dictatorial military powers; because that is what is stated. It has never been understood as that way because the context of it is to be examined in the light of parliamentary democracy that we inherited by Britain. And this is what you’ve done with the Bible. Drawn it out and tried to look at it for what you think it says; interpreting it for yourself, and out of the context of the Church for which it was written.

Recall what my point actually was, just because "Saint" Peter says there is no slave or free to God doesn't mean there are no slaves in reality. So no, you didn't address my point.

In the wrap-up, at the end of the day, when we face God, our social status will not matter.

But it still matters during the day, in reality, when people were slaves.

What a really weak citation you’ve given me. So, somewhere on that very extensive site is something that supports your statement about the civil war? Why did Lincoln just decide, in the middle of a war, to end slavery? Was Lincoln a non-Christian? Did he act without regards to Christian influence?

How do you figure that's a weak citation? There's a link on the left side of the page titled "Causes of the Civil War" that supports everything I said. It's also virtually identical to the argument my history professor made in college.

"Hostility between the two sections grew perceptibly after 1820, the year of the Missouri Compromise, which was intended as a permanent solution to the issue in which that hostility was most clearly expressed—the question of the extension or prohibition of slavery in the federal territories of the West."

Lincoln opposed slavery long before he was elected President. To your question of why he decided in the middle of the war, he postponed action against slavery until he believed he had wider support from the American public.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/almintr.html

I note to you didn’t address the fact that secularists were all in favour of maintaining the status quo.

My apologies, but I thought addressed it by pointing out that southern Christians wanted to preserve slavery, and they used the Bible to support their God-given right to own slaves. It was not a Christian vs. secular war. In many ways it could be considered Christian vs. Christian, but that ignores the Deists and agnostics who supported/opposed slavery.

By the way, to make nested quotes, you can use this format:

(quote)(quote)origional statement here(/quote)your response here(/quote)

 

[Montalban]

You have nothing to back that up except your own opinion. And too many history experts disagree with your opinion for me to find it credible.

"Probably over a quarter of the people living under ancient Roman rule were slaves - but they were kept so suppressed, there is little known about them."

"Some slaves were treated well, but there were few restraints on their owners' powers, and physical punishment and sexual abuse were common. Owners thought of their slaves as enemies. By definition slavery was a brutal, violent and dehumanising institution, where slaves were seen as akin to animals."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/slavery_02.shtml

Your own evidence undermines your beliefs in the nature of slavery in the ancient world, by the concession that some slaves were treated okay. It was not 'inherrently' brutal; though brutality happened.
Rev cited several biblical injunctions curbing that brutality.

The Roman world was brutal also on its lower classes. Champions of the massess, such as Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus both met violent ends... which brings me back to the extension of your 'logic' about Jesus' statement 'render unto Caesar'

I'd also like you to address the many humerous errors you made with regard the US Civil War and slavery

 

[Soviet_Guy]

Eating Pork Is No Sin. In Ancient Times A Pig's Hoove could've been easily invaded by parasites and cause sickness to whoever ate it. So there you go.

Okay, this has become a topic way apart from it's original value, Pork is not a Sin, so end this, your pointless bickering has no worth.

 

[Montalban]

Okay, this has become a topic way apart from it's original value, Pork is not a Sin, so end this, your pointless bickering has no worth.

Yes, let's stop all these debates! :rofl

 

[Binary_Digit]

Okay, this has become a topic way apart from it's original value, Pork is not a Sin, so end this, your pointless bickering has no worth.

If you had bothered to follow the conversation, you would have seen how the argument boils down to a difference of interpretation of the book of Galations. So we've moved on. Why do you care anyway? If you don't like "pointless bickering" on a debate politics forum, then don't read it!

Your own evidence undermines your beliefs in the nature of slavery in the ancient world, by the concession that some slaves were treated okay. It was not 'inherrently' brutal; though brutality happened.

You need to pick up a dictionary and look up the word "inherent". It doesn't mean brutality happened to every last slave, it means brutality was an essential part of maintaining control of slaves.

Rev cited several biblical injunctions curbing that brutality.

Yeah. You can beat your slave but don't kill him or put his eye out. Way to curb that brutality! All but one of those quotes were from the OT anyway, and I thought those laws don't apply anymore. So which is it? Do they still apply or don't they?

The Roman world was brutal also on its lower classes. Champions of the massess, such as Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus both met violent ends... which brings me back to the extension of your 'logic' about Jesus' statement 'render unto Caesar'

Once again, if Jesus TOLD Caesar to beat the lower class people, like he told people to beat slaves, you would have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.
And don't try to say Jesus didn't tell people to beat slaves, I've already quoted the verses like four times now.

I'd also like you to address the many humerous errors you made with regard the US Civil War and slavery

You'd like to, but you didn't. Because you can't. Historical facts vs. your opinion, who wins?

 

[Soviet_Guy]

If you had bothered to follow the conversation..

Uhh, yeaaaaah,I'm going to waste my time reading about 8 pages worth of crap. Yeah, I'll do that. :roll:

 

[sebastiansdreams]

You need to pick up a dictionary and look up the word "inherent". It doesn't mean brutality happened to every last slave, it means brutality was an essential part of maintaining control of slaves.

By brutality you mean beatings. Can you prove to us that beating slaves was indeed an essential part of slavery? Because I would argue to you that you have no more proof that says it is than I do to say that it is a corrupt method that was never practiced but by those who were in fact unGodly masters who would not follow the law of God regardless.

Yeah. You can beat your slave but don't kill him or put his eye out. Way to curb that brutality! All but one of those quotes were from the OT anyway, and I thought those laws don't apply anymore. So which is it? Do they still apply or don't they?

Yes, just like you are allowed to whip your children if they somehow disobey you. In otherwords, if one of your workers is not doing their job, instead of taking them to court and allowing a court to decide their fate, you, as the land owner, were in charge of their punishment. But you have no evidence that this usually resulted in beating. You just assume that because it strengthens your case against it. However, the probability of the matter is that a man seeking to be in the will of God and treating everyone as a child of God is not going to be abusive to his servants. End of story. Another large problem you are overlooking here is the difference between Roman slavery and Isrealite slavery. You were speaking of the historical make-up of Roman slavery (that it was brutal etc.). Montablan pointed out that Romans were by their very nature incredibly brutal. However, the Biblical references to how servants are to be treated is given rather to the Hebrew people. And there is certainly no reason for us to believe that Roman slavery and Hebrew slavery were in the same ballpark. It is arguable that Hebrew/Isrealite slavery was indeed more like indentured servitude. Yes, we do know that POW's were taken in as servants. But realistically, this is simply a slight variation on our current system of prison confinement. Do we not force our prisoners to do community service for the betterment of our state/country? Do we not use force on them if they do not behave as they are meant to? I would certainly argue that this form of slavery was simply another alternative to prisons that were not yet established as they are now. But would you suggest that we are barbaric because we force community service on our prisoners?

Once again, if Jesus TOLD Caesar to beat the lower class people, like he told people to beat slaves, you would have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.
And don't try to say Jesus didn't tell people to beat slaves, I've already quoted the verses like four times now.

The problem is you are not understanding Luke 12:47-48. The problem with your understanding of the passage is that you are ignoring the audience. Jesus at this point is not talking to slave owners. He is talking to His disciples. He is telling His disciples that in the nature that a slave would be punished for not obeying his master (or a child would be punished for not obeying their parents), so will those who knowingly choose to dissobey the Lord will be "whipped" or punished by the Lord. You have to realize that because Christ was talking to His disciples, it is certainly not likely that He is giving comands to slave owners, but rather using allegory to explain a greater message (notice how Christ speaks to His disciples, it is almost always through allegory, and speaking of the kingdom. Why would He change His message here? Especially talking to men that don't even own slaves?). So, in reality Jesus did not tell anyone to beat slaves. He simply was pointing out that through example of contemporary slavery (Roman slavery, since that was at this point what is prevelant) what will happen to those who knowingly dissobey God.

You'd like to, but you didn't. Because you can't. Historical facts vs. your opinion, who wins?[/QUOTE]

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Uhh, yeaaaaah,I'm going to waste my time reading about 8 pages worth of crap. Yeah, I'll do that. :roll:

I'm so confused. You think this entire debate is crap, yet you bother reading excerts from it and then posting yourself? Why bother?

 

[Soviet_Guy]

I like to put my one sentence opinion into the fire, you know, a little gin to burn.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I like to put my one sentence opinion into the fire, you know, a little gin to burn.

Why on earth would you burn gin!

 

[Soviet_Guy]

If you add some gin into a fire it'll work almost like gas, you know ALCOHOL! Idiot. :roll:

 

[sebastiansdreams]

If you add some gin into a fire it'll work almost like gas, you know ALCOHOL! Idiot. :roll:

Well, yes of course it's going to burn. But why waste good gin for a fire? I'd almost rather have gin than fire any day of the year!

 

[Soviet_Guy]

I prefer Cognac.

 

[Montalban]

You need to pick up a dictionary and look up the word "inherent". It doesn't mean brutality happened to every last slave, it means brutality was an essential part of maintaining control of slaves.

I pointed out that the Romans were brutal to all manner of groups of people. You concentrate just on slavery say that the Bible says nothing about their plight, therefore is an actual support for slavery. I pointed out that by this reasoning Jesus was for brutality of the Roman system as a whole, because he advocated the payment of the taxes essential to the running of the system.

You deny this. You state that 'brutality' was an essential part of maintaining slave control, and ignore that for the Romans, brutality was 'essential' in control, full stop.

You are endeavouring to make a distinction between Roman brutality to one class of peoples and its brutality towards all others. Your argument is flawed.

And its also lacking. Lacking for want of support for your statements about the US Civil War - other than you citing a very generalised site and saying to me that somewhere within the pages and pages of text is the support for you - in other words you are asking me to research the 'facts' that back your case.